The StandDown Texas Project

Texas Indigent Defense Symposium

The newly renamed Texas Indigent Defense Commission, formerly the Task Force, is holding its 2011 Indigent Defense Symposium in the Texas Capitol, today.  It marks 10 years of the Texas Fair Defense Act, passed in the 2001 Texas Legislature.

It includes excellent programming, and it's being live-streamed via the Texas Senate website.  Scroll to the Capitol Extension Auditorium and click to view using Real Player.

Because of the name change I am now adding a Texas Indigent Defense Commission category.  New items involving the agency will be noted with that category.  The Task Force on Indigent Defense category will remain in the index for older entries.

 

Senate Passes Reform to Post-Convction DNA Testing Access

"Senate Passes DNA Bill," is the title of Jordan Smith's post for the Austin Chronicle.

The Texas Senate today passed a measure to increase access to post-conviction DNA testing.

The bill, Senate Bill 122, by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, was among the measures recommended by the Tim Cole Advisory Panel, convened after the last session to look at improvements to Texas' criminal justice system that might prevent future wrongful convictions like that of Tim Cole, who was convicted of a rape he did not commit and died in prison before he could clear his name.

Current law allows for post-conviction DNA testing but confines such testing to cases only where testing wasn't previously available; if the evidence was previously tested the statute would allow additional testing, but only in certain circumstances, like that the failure to test was "no fault of the convicted person" – a legal term of art that is directly implicated in the Hank Skinner death case that recently went to the Supreme Court. (More on that case can be found here.)

Ellis' measure would require post-conviction DNA testing if the evidence wasn't previously tested or if it was but newer testing techniques give rise to a likelihood that testing it again would provide results that are "more accurate and probative than the previous test results." Moreover, the bill would require courts to order any unidentified DNA profile to be compared to DNA databases maintained by the FBI and by the Department of Public Safety.

"Under current law, innocence is often being left to chance," Ellis said in a press release. "Strengthening Texas' post-conviction DNA law is an essential measure to improve justice in Texas."

"DNA testing bill advances," by Mike Ward for the Austin American-Statesman.

Under existing law, post-conviction DNA testing is often not performed if the issue was not raised at trial. Post-conviction DNA tests can be granted only if testing was not available at trial, if testing was not technologically capable of proving guilt or innocence, or was not tested through no fault of the convicted person.

Ellis said that based on Texas’ many wrongful convictions, discovered through DNA tests, evidence should be tested in any case where there is any doubt “in the interests of justice.”

Recent court decisions and an exoneration in Houston involving Ricardo Rachell have demonstrated the flaws in Texas’ DNA law, Ellis said.

Rachell was exonerated in Houston in 2008 after six years in prison for a child sexual assault that DNA tests later showed he did not commit.

The bill requires post-conviction DNA testing if the biological evidence was not previously tested or if the biological evidence was previously tested but can be subjected to newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood that the results will be more accurate and probative than the previous test results.

Christy Hoppe writes, "Senate bill makes DNA tests easier for inmates to obtain," for the Dallas Morning News.

Convicted offenders would have a clearer ability to seek testing of DNA material in their cases to prove their innocence under a bill passed by the full Senate on Wednesday.

Under currently law, the courts can deny post-conviction testing if the offenders at the time of their trials had an opportunity to test DNA but chose not to. Sometimes defense attorneys are hesitant to seek DNA tests because they fear it could lead to more evidence against their clients.

After the conviction, the concern has been that there's nothing for the offender to lose in seeking the testing, and such requests could lead to wasted time and expense.

In the San Antonio Express-News Bobby Cervantes writes, "Changes to post-conviction DNA win Senate approval."

Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, filed a companion bill in the House, and it was left pending after a committee hearing in February.

"Senate Approves Easing Restrictions on DNA Testing," by Becca Aaronson for the Texas Tribune.

If DNA testing is used to exonerate a prisoner, the bill also has a provision requiring the DNA profile to be compared to the federal CODIS DNA database to help find the actual perpetrator. 

The bill could have serious implications for prisoners who claim DNA evidence could prove their innocence, such as with Hank Skinner, a death row inmate who recently won a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing him to pursue post-conviction DNA testing in federal court. Ellis said DNA testing would help Texas identify innocent death row inmates before they are executed.

Senate Bill122 is one of the recommendations of the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions.  It's report is in Adobe .pdf format.

Earlier coverage of the package of legislation designed to minimize the risk of wrongful convictions begins at the link.

Eyewitness ID Reform Measure Passes House Committee

"Eyewitness ID legislation aims to prevent conviction of the innocent in Texas," is the Dallas Morning News report written by Erin Mulvaney.

A bill meant to streamline eyewitness identification procedures, approved Tuesday by a House committee, would bring the state a step closer to fixing a key problem with the criminal justice system, advocates said.

Under the legislation, police departments would have to adopt uniform standards for eyewitness identification.

The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee approved the bill unanimously after hearing from criminal justice officials and emotional testimony from half a dozen exonerees from Dallas, who spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit. The measure will now go to the full House for consideration.

“This bill has special importance for Dallas County, has tremendous public interest and support,” said Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas. “It deserves a head start to get it passed and out of the House.”

The exonerees made emotional appeals to lawmakers. James Giles, a Dallas man exonerated in 2007, told the lawmakers that he was picked out of a lineup and accused of rape, although he had never seen the victim before. He spent 10 years in prison and 14 years as a registered sex offender on parole.

“[The victim] picked me out of all the guys in the photo book she was given,” Giles said. “The system will work, but it takes one person to say what is right and, believe you me, everyone will follow.”

Policies for gathering eyewitness identification would have to be based on scientific research on memory, along with relevant policies and guidelines developed by the federal government and other states. Policies would have to address the selection of photographs, lineup filler photographs or participants and instruction given to witnesses. The Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas at Sam Houston State University would create a model policy to be distributed to local law enforcement agencies.

Texas has had 42 exonerations, 38 in cases that had been based on false eyewitness identification. The tally accelerated when the Legislature created a clear pathway for requesting DNA testing in 2001, said Edwin Colfax, a project manager at the Task Force on Indigent Defense.

Four states — Ohio , North Carolina , New Jersey and Wisconsin — have implemented legislation similar to the eyewitness identification bill.

Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Hervey, a member of an expert panel that was commissioned by the Legislature in 2009 to study the causes of wrongful convictions and make recommendations, called the bill a great step forward.

And:

Cory Session, the brother of Timothy Cole, who died in prison in 1999 and was posthumously exonerated, and for whom the panel studying wrongful convictions was named, warned that without the bill, the criminal justice system will continue to make too many mistakes.

“It is time for us to move forward and get out of the dark ages with wrongful convictions,” said Session, a policy director for the Texas Innocence Project.

He suggested enforcing a procedure used by the Dallas Police Department for identification — a sequential, double-blind lineup. In this process, the administrator does not know which participant is the suspect and presents suspects to a witness one by one.

The method has been proved more effective in other states, Session said.

The committee also discussed two other bills related to preventing convictions of the innocent. One would require law enforcement officers to record interrogations for violent, serious crimes. The other addresses writs of habeas corpus, which order that people in custody be brought before a court. The proposed measure would extend the limit for the writs filed under certain circumstances.

The AP report, by Sommer Ingram is,  "Bill to reduce wrong convictions passes committee."  It's via the Houston Chronicle.

A Texas House committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would require law enforcement agencies to standardize the way eyewitnesses identify suspects in an effort to reduce the number of wrongful convictions.

The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee voted to require agencies to adopt a written policy based on a model or create something similar to determine how they conduct photographic or live lineups. Currently only 12 percent of agencies in the state have written policies.

To avoid unintentionally influencing the witness, the person administering the lineup would be prohibited from knowing who the suspect in the case is. The procedures would be written based on reliable research on eyewitness memory and relevant policies developed by other governments and agencies.

Advocates say the issue is one of the most important in criminal justice, and lawmakers have long seen a need for reform in this area of the system. Texas leads the nation in the most convicts exonerated by DNA evidence, with more than 40 people released from prison since 1994.

Seven men who spent decades imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit testified before the committee in support of the legislation. They said they wouldn't have lost years of their lives behind bars if the lineup process had been conducted differently.

And:

The bill's author, Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions and amending the identification process is a crucial step to fixing the problem. Ohio, North Carolina, New Jersey and Wisconsin have implemented similar reform legislation.

"The idea is to establish a fairly uniform way of doing things across the state, whether in a small town or a large county, so we have some understanding of this process," Gallego said.

Gallego said if an agency doesn't comply with the law, its non-compliance could be acceptable as evidence in court but does not bar admission of the eyewitness identification testimony.

The bill grows out of recommendations from the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, named after the first Texan to be posthumously exonerated of a crime by DNA testing. Cole was wrongly convicted of a rape he did not commit in 1986 and died of complications from asthma in 1999 while serving his 25-year sentence.

The article also notes that Governor Perry has pledged to sign the bill.

Details of HB 215 are available from Texas Legislature Online.

The other two bills considered by the Committee, also recommended by the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, are HB 219 and HB 220.  Both bills are also sponsored by Gallego.  HB 219 deals with electronic recording and admissibility of certain custodial interrogations.  HB 220 deals is procedures for applications for writs of habeas corpus based on relevant scientific evidence.  Those two bills remain in the Committee, but are likely to be voted out at its next meeting.

Earlier coverage begins at the link. More on Tim Cole's wrongful conviction and posthumous exoneration  begins here.  Earlier coverage of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit, and the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, at the links.

Rodney Ellis' Legislative Agenda - Preventing Wrongful Convictions

Today's Houston Chronicle reports, "Ellis works to halt wrongful convictions."  It's written by Bobby Cervantes.

In the decade since state lawmakers last addressed wrongful convictions, Texas has earned the distinction of having the highest number of exonerations based on DNA evidence in the nation.

At least 42 men from a dozen Texas counties have leveled successful DNA challenges to their convictions, according to the Innocence Project of Texas.

In light of that, Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, is hoping a fresh move toward criminal justice reform will elbow its way to the forefront in a session jammed with a massive budget shortfall, redistricting and a raft of contentious measures, such as voter ID and anti-illegal immigration legislation.

Ellis is proposing an "Innocence Protection Package," four bills aimed at decreasing the number of wrongful convictions in Texas. Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, is the package's sponsor in the House.

"I tried to pick things that I thought were very much in the mainstream of criminal justice reforms that shouldn't cost money, that will save money," Ellis said. "They've been well-vetted and (have) broad-based support."

State lawmakers in 2009 created a panel to examine the issue of wrongful convictions and propose reforms. After a year-long investigation, the 11-member panel of legislators, judges and legal groups last August recommended changes for the 82nd Legislature.

Ellis' bills include many of the panel's suggestions, including uniform procedures for eyewitness identification, requiring investigators to record interrogations in serious felonies, streamlining defendants' appeals for DNA testing, and reorganizing Texas' indigent defense task force.

The eyewitness ID and DNA testing bills passed the Senate last session, but stalled in the House.

In 85 percent of exoneration cases, mistaken eyewitness identification sealed the defendants' guilt, according to the Innocence Project of Texas. In many counties, no uniform or documented eyewitness policies exist, the group said.

Under Ellis' bill, law enforcement agencies would have to develop written procedures for using suspects' photographs in line-ups and conducting live line-ups.
GOP opposition unlikely

Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Plano, who served on the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee last session, said he could not see a GOP effort to block Ellis' bills if they are in line with recommendations from the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit, which Judge Barbara Hervey, of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, launched in 2008.

The unit includes Hervey, Ellis and reform advocates, including Jim Bethke, director of the Taskforce on Indigent Defense, and Barry Scheck, director of the New York-based Innocence Project.

"I have pretty good confidence that some of those things will move forward and would be passed," Madden said. "If they're different, they'd have to be looked at."

I believe that the legislation is actually from the recommendations of the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions.  There is an overlap in the membership of that body, created by the last legislature, which issued its report late last year, and Judge Hervey's Criminal Justice Integrity Unit.

The Cole Panel Report and a volume of Research Details are available in Adobe .pdf format.  More on Tim Cole's wrongful conviction and posthumous exoneration  begins here.

Earlier coverage of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit, and the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, at the links.

The Ellis-Gallego legislation on eyewitness identiciation procedures is SB 121/HB 215.  The Ellis/Gallego legislation on electronic recording of custodial interrogations is SB 123/HB 219.  Senator Ellis' bill on post-conviction DNA testing is SB 122.  Rep. Gallego and Sen. John Whitmire have filed the campanion bills SB 317/HB 220, on post-conviction testing of forensic evidence.

Indigent Defense in San Antonio

Today's San Antonio Express-News reports, "Bexar task force to examine indigent defense."  It's written by Brian Chasnoff.

Responding to a proposal by Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, commissioners agreed Wednesday to form an independent task force to explore best practices for providing indigent defense, the costs of which have risen millions of dollars in the past decade.

“We could collectively appoint the task force,” Wolff said, noting the growth of public defender offices in other Texas counties.

Jim Bethke, director of the state's Task Force on Indigent Defense, told commissioners at the meeting that he would offer resources and guidance to the nascent county task force.

Officials recently began scrutinizing the issue after the state task force found a small number of attorneys received a large percentage of court-appointed cases last year, the result of erratic appointment methods in the courts.

A subsequent investigation by the San Antonio Express-News and WOAI-TV found appointments skewed significantly in particular courtrooms, both in the number of cases appointed to certain attorneys and the amount of money they earned.

State law requires courts to appoint lawyers neutrally from a list. But local courts for years have disregarded the list, known as “the wheel.”

Defending the practice, some judges say large numbers of defendants routinely appear in court needing appointments, forcing courts to ignore the wheel in favor of attorneys who are available.

Local courts since have returned to following the wheel.

Tim Johnson, the county's director of judicial services, told commissioners Wednesday that Pre-Trial Services, which appoints lawyers from the wheel to defendants it finds indigent, is enacting fixes to inadequacies in the current system.

“They're quick and don't cost much,” Johnson said.

And:

Bexar County's Department of Planning and Resource Management presented a report on indigent defense to the commissioners that delved into the unequal distribution of cases last year.

The report states indigent defense costs have risen from $6.2 million to $13.3 million in the past nine years.

The top-earning attorney last year was Hilda Valadez, who earned $132,245 in court-appointed cases, including $93,690 in Judge Sid Harle's court.

By contrast, 75 percent of attorneys earned less than $25,000 in court-appointed cases, the report states.

Related posts are in the indigent defense and Task Force on Indigent Defense category indexes.

In Praise of Public Defenders

"Public defenders for Texans of the Year," is the title of an OpEd by State Senator Rodney Ellis in today's Dallas Morning News.

"[R]eason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth."

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote those words in the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, recognizing every American's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and requiring that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. They ring as true today as they did when Justice Black authored the decision over 47 years ago.

Who defends Texans too poor to defend themselves? In the past it was typically a private, appointed lawyer, but increasingly today it is a public defender. These are the men and women who, day after day, have to do what many would consider to be a thankless job ­ defend people who have been accused of committing crimes, sometimes horrible ones.

But these are also people who defend the constitutional rights of the less fortunate ­ one case at a time. For that reason, I nominate public defenders as the Dallas Morning News Texan(s) of the Year.

And:

Before the Fair Defense Act passed in 2001, there were seven public defender offices in Texas representing seven counties. Today, there are 17 offices for 92 counties.

Why the increase? Because counties have realized that defender offices can provide better legal services at a better price for taxpayers. They create economies of scale and allow for better sharing of expertise and resources among defense lawyers. One great example of this is the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases. In small, cash-strapped counties, a death penalty case can literally bankrupt a county and result in higher taxes to pay for the defense. The West Texas defender office now has agreements among 71 counties to provide defense services to persons accused of capital crimes for a relatively small fee. The office has plans to expand to 240 of Texas' 254 counties with populations less than 300,000 people.

Other defender offices have improved serves while saving money. The Kaufman County Public Defender, which won a 2008 County Best Practice Award from the Texas Association of Counties, cleared a backlog of cases within its first year of operations and reduced the county's jail population. Saving taxpayers' money isn't the only reason why public defenders should be the Texan of the Year. They also provide better justice.

Earlier coverage of the issue in Texas is in the Task Force on Indigent Defense index; related posts are in the indigent defense index.

Good First Step

That's the title of an editorial in the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle.  It's subtitled, "Tough legal veteran will launch Harris County Public Defender office."  Here's an extended excerpt:

After decades of controversy over poor representation for indigent defendants in Harris County courts, a long sought public defender system is moving closer to reality. Last week Commissioners Court hired a veteran attorney with extensive experience setting up such operations around the country to start on the job Dec. 6.

Guiding the new program from a state-funded pilot with limited scope to an effective full-service public defender office accepted by the local judiciary won't be easy. Some judges have indicated they will stick with the current system of court-appointed lawyers until they are convinced the defender system is working. Critics contend that the appointment of lawyers creates an unhealthy relationship in which attorneys sometime put their relationship with the judge above the interests of clients. The power of appointment also assures jurists a steady stream of campaign contributions.

Based on his credentials, 51-year-old Alex Bunin is the right choice to end Harris County's status as the largest metro area in the nation without a public defender system. He's a South Texas College of Law graduate who practiced criminal law here and is currently the chief federal public defender for the Northern District of New York offices in Albany and Syracuse. Before that he set up similar offices in Alabama and Vermont. His new duties in Houston will include supervising 68 employees, nearly triple his staff in New York.

Bunin acknowledged to reporters after his appointment that Harris County has a history of slipshod justice, which he hopes to erase with a system that provides independent, competent counsel. "There's a problem of persons being convicted and sent to prison and even put on death row that are innocent," said Bunin, "and we seek to combat the reality of that."

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, has advocated for a Harris County public defender and sponsored enabling legislation. In today's Outlook section, he presents a compelling argument that the new office will reduce jail overcrowding and lower costs while closing "a gaping legal divide between justice for the rich and justice for the poor — too often leaving one's innocence dependent on their income."

The Harris County Public Defender starts out as a so-called hybrid, which will have to grow into a full-service office. Initially funded by a $4.1 million state grant, it will exist alongside continued appointment of attorneys by judges. The new public defender will be helped by the fact that Harris County recently widened the scope of his operation in response to complaints from Ellis and others that the pilot program was too limited.

So far 20 of 22 district judges have committed to using public defenders, and more serious felony cases will be included in assignments. The first cases to be represented will involve mentally ill people charged with misdemeanors and appeals by indigent defendants. An independent oversight board has been added to the original proposal to insulate the new agency from political pressure by Commissioners Court and local judges.

Earlier coverage begins with the post, "Harris County Taps Experienced Hand for Public Defender;" related posts are in the indigent defense index.

More Coverage of the Tim Cole Panel Report

The Austin Chronicle, our independent, alt-weekly hitting the streets today, has, "Panel Targets Roots of Wrongful Convictions."  It's written by Jordan Smith.

The Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions made five major proposals last week for lawmakers heading into next year's legislative session. The panel, named for the state's first posthumously exonerated man (he died in prison while serving time for a rape he did not commit), was tasked with considering the causes of wrongful conviction and making recommendations to avoid future miscarriages of justice. Among those were recommendations that state police agencies record all suspect interrogations and adopt model policies for handling eyewitness identification procedures. Another proposal recommends that state lawmakers reform post-conviction law to allow for DNA testing of evidence regardless of why it was not previously tested. But whether the recommendations will be adopted and passed by legislators in 2011 – and whether they'll actually have their intended effect – remains to be seen.

Chief among the group's recommendations is to require the Bill Blackwood Law Enforce­ment Management Institute of Texas at Sam Houston State University to work with law enforcement and scientific experts in eyewitness ID to "develop, adopt, [and] disseminate" information to Texas police agencies and annually review policy and training materials on the administration of live and photo lineups.

Dealing with the problem of poor eyewitness ID is no small matter in Texas, where faulty IDs have been implicated in more than 80% of the state's DNA exonerations (there are 41 to date). Moreover, according to a 2009 report by nonprofit the Justice Proj­ect, only 88 police agencies – out of 750 that responded to inquiries – could supply any written policies covering live or photo lineup procedures.'

And:

The panel appears unanimous on other recommendations, including the suggestion that lawmakers amend the law governing post-conviction appeals to allow for testing of any "previously untested biological evidence, regardless of the reason the evidence was not previously tested" or for retesting evidence that was previously conducted with "older, less accurate" testing methods. More­over, the group has recommended that the law be amended to allow inmates to appeal based on advances in science that may undermine the reliability of evidence originally used against them.

And:

The panel's recommendations have been accepted by the Task Force on Indigent Defense, and now state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, hopes his colleagues and the governor (whoever that may be next year) will make passing the recommendations into law a priority. "Now the ball is in the Legislature's court. I call on my fellow legislators ... to dedicate ourselves to creating a justice system that truly protects the innocent, ensures the guilty are brought to justice, and is instilled with the fairness and integrity that justice demands," Ellis said in a press statement. "We owe Tim Cole and his family that much."

Earlier coverage of the panel's work begins with this post; the Report and a volume of Research Details are available in Adobe .pdf format.  More on Tim Cole's wrongful conviction and posthumous exoneration  begins here.

One side note -- Chronicle journalist Jordan Smith is being honored this fall by the Texas Civil Rights Project for her reporting; details here.

The Work of the Tim Cole Panel

On Sunday, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram carried the editorial, "Legal safeguards recommended by Timothy Cole advisory panel."

For a while, every time the family of Tim Cole went to Austin or held a local news conference to declare his innocence, they took along a large photo of the smiling bright-eyed young man.

They wanted state officials and the world to see the man who was convicted of a horrible crime -- rape of a fellow Texas Tech student in 1985 -- and died in prison before he could be exonerated.

Cole is the face of the wrongly convicted in Texas, and his name is synonymous with exonerations.

And:

Last week, the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions spent its last meeting by adopting a 50-page draft report that included proposals that covered a wide range of changes to current procedures in criminal investigations.

Included in the recommendations are new guidelines for all Texas law enforcement agencies regarding eyewitness identification. Since 1994, there have been more than 40 exonerations in the state using DNA evidence and, in 80 percent of the cases (including Cole's), erroneous eyewitness identification played a role.

The panel also recommends allowing DNA testing in cases that did not have it originally or in which older methods had been used; mandatory electronic recording of interrogations in certain crimes like murder, capital murder, kidnapping and sex crimes against children; and allowing defense lawyers' access to prosecution evidence and DNA test results.

Panel members wisely did not propose the creation of another state agency as some had suggested. Rather than forming a statewide innocence commission with subpoena power, the report recommends further assistance of the existing state-funded innocence projects at Texas Tech, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston and Texas Southern University. In addition, projects at Texas Wesleyan University Law School in Fort Worth would continue to play a part in investigating claims of those who allege being falsely accused.

It ends:

Texas lawmakers must do everything within their power to make sure there is never another case like Tim Cole's.

Earlier coverage of Tim Cole's case begins here; the panel's work, here.

Capital Litigation Costs in Hill County

"Capital Murder Trials Bring New Expenses," is the title of a report in today's Hillsboro Reporter.  Hill County is located between Dallas and Waco on IH-35.

For the fourth time since 2006, capital murder indictments have been handed up by a Hill County grand jury, this time two at a time. 

Thirty-three-year-old James Christianson Jr. of Plano and 32-year-old Jennifer Alvarez of Amarillo are the latest capital murder suspects to be held in the Hill County Law Enforcement Center.

Only time will tell what effect that could have on the county financially as County Judge Justin Lewis prepares to file his 2011 preliminary budget later this week.

This time last year, the county was facing two capital murder trials with court-appointed lawyers as budget time approached.

Roger McClure was awaiting trial in the October 2006 death of Kenneth Wayne Hillyard near Penelope, and Debra Janelle Jeter stood charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder in connection with attacks on her daughters.

That prompted commissioners to create a capital murder line item in the jury fund containing $250,000 as a precautionary measure.

McClure was convicted of capital murder in November and received a life sentence. Jeter recently entered pleas in her cases in exchange for life sentences.

In both cases, the county sought or is seeking financial relief through the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense (TTFID).

The program allows counties with little means to seek reimbursement for defense attorney fees, investigation expenses, expert witness expenses and other litigation expenses.

But, no funds may be sought to pay for investigation or legal expenses of the attorney for the state.

The maximum amount for which a county may seek reimbursement is $100,000 per case.

Related items are in the cost index.

Harris County Indigent Defense Update

"Harris County sweetens public defender proposal," is the title of Chris Moran's report in today's Houston Chronicle.

Seeking to strengthen its bid for state funding to open a public defender office, Harris County has changed its application to ask for less money and to propose public defenders in more courtrooms.

If the state Task Force on Indigent Defense approves the county's request for $4.1 million on Aug. 25, the county will launch a hybrid system of a public defender and court-appointed attorneys in February. The county's indigent defendants currently are represented by court-appointed attorneys selected from a pool of private practitioners.

Today, Commissioners Court will consider reducing the amount of grant money sought from $4.4 million to $4.1 million in response to concerns from the Task Force that the county was not covering enough of the administrative costs of running an office. It also will consider authorizing the county's purchasing agent to start looking for a chief public defender to run the office.

The county's previous version of the application received criticism from academics, local ministers, defense advocacy groups and the local state senator who authored the law authorizing the creation of public defender offices in Texas counties. Among the criticisms were that not enough judges planned to participate, that the office would not serve high-level felony defendants and that the office was subject to control by the judiciary and Commissioners Court.

Originally, 11 of 22 district court judges had volunteered to use a public defender on felony trial cases and only three agreed to the new office's use on appellate cases. Now, 20 judges have bought in on felony trials and 18 on appeals.

And:

The county's pitch for the state money has changed in other ways:

To protect the public defender from meddling by Commissioners Court or the judiciary, an independent oversight board would be established for the office. Judges, attorneys, indigent defense groups, the county attorney and Commissioners Court all would get to make appointments to the board.

In the original application, public defenders would represent felony defendants accused only of low-level crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs. The revamped proposal would have the public defender take on more serious felony trials. The plan also continues to provide for juvenile, appeals and mental health cases.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis harshly criticized the previous proposal for not going far enough to change what he called a "sleazy" and "old-school" system of indigent defense. A spokesman for Ellis said Friday that the senator is much more supportive of the revised proposal.

Earlier coverage of the Harris County proposal begins with this post.  Related posts are in the indigent defense and  Task Force on Indigent Defense category indexes.

Montgomery County Proposes Specialized Docket

The Courier of Montgomery County reports, "County seeks $550K grant for mentally ill indigent defendants."  It's written by Kassia Micek.

Montgomery County hopes to break new ground as the first county in the state to offer a docket solely for mentally ill indigent defendants.

Commissioners Court approved Monday morning an application to the Task Force on Indigent Defense for a $550,000 indigent defense grant. The five-year grant requires a 20 percent match by the county in infrastructure, such as office space and personnel, but no financial match, said Genoveva Perez, director of the Office of Indigent Defense in Montgomery County.

“We’ve applied for a grant to set up a private defender mental health court,” Perez said. “They (mentally ill indigent defendants) would be put on a special docket and heard by a judge … Mental health patients don’t need to be routed through the criminal system. We need to stop the recidivism of mental health patients. They don’t necessarily fit in with the other criminals. We’re trying to get them treatment.”

Of the nearly 1,200 mental health defendants in the Montgomery County Jail annually, roughly 600 are indigent, Perez said. The court would be for indigent defendants identified as being mental health patients in the past.

“Our ultimate goal with the mental health grant is to decrease the rate of recidivism so their contact in the future with the criminal justice system is greatly reduced,” said Judge Cara Wood, of the 284th state District Court, adding the program will offer treatment and alternatives so the defendants no longer come in contact with the criminal justice system.

Services would be contracted out to a group of attorneys with a nonprofit agency, Perez said.

If the grant is approved, Montgomery County’s court would be the first of its kind in Texas, Perez said.

In Austin, Travis County opened the nation's first dedicated public defender office to represent mentally ill defendants (noted here).  Lubbock uses a private defender program (noted here), and Bexar County has its own program to deal with mentally ill defendants (noted here).  

Related posts are in the mental illness index.

Students, Innocence Projects, & Exonerations

This morning's Texas Tribune carries, "Student Work, Wins Increase on Innocence Projects," by Kate Ergenbright.

Nick Vilbas knew he wasn’t studying law so he could eventually work for some high-powered corporation. He wanted to pursue justice for the wrongly accused, and he got the opportunity to do it before he even graduated from the Texas Tech University School of Law.

Vilbas drafted legal filings and combed through piles of case documents on behalf of Timothy Cole, who died in prison while serving a 25-year sentence for a rape he did not commit. Eventually, the work of Vilbas and other student volunteers at the Innocence Project of Texas would lead Gov. Rick Perry to issue the first-ever posthumous exoneration in Texas.

“It cemented the fact that I knew I was doing something righteous,” Vilbas said. “You’re not fighting for a corporation to make them more money — you’re trying to seek justice for a person that didn’t do anything wrong.”

The number of exonerations in Texas has grown as the number of student volunteers in innocence projects, like Vilbas, has skyrocketed over the last decade. The first university innocence project started at the University of Houston Law Center in March 2000 with just four student volunteers and limited resources. Now, all four major Texas law schools and a number of smaller, private universities have students working on exonerations.

More than 120 students from Texas Tech, the University of Texas and the University of Houston worked more than 12,300 hours on Innocence Project cases from 2007 to 2009, according to the Task Force on Indigent Defense. As student participation has increased, so have exonerations. To date, Texas has issued 42 exonerations, 35 of them since 2001. Though factors such as scientific advancements in DNA testing have also contributed significantly to exoneration efforts, student involvement has been a critical element, said Natalie Roetzel, chief staff attorney of the Innocence Project of Texas. “It’s pretty safe to say that without student help and investigative power, we would not have as many exonerations,” she said.

Since 2005, state lawmakers have provided about $100,000 a year to each of the four public university innocence projects. Those dollars help keep the programs going, but they don’t go very far when DNA testing can cost up to $30,000 per case, Roetzel said. In the Tim Cole case, Texas Tech students did almost all the investigative work, she said.

And:

In Texas, the Innocence Project has resulted in legislative action. The exoneration of Tim Cole — who died in 1999 of an asthma attack in prison — inspired the Tim Cole Act, which awards exonerees $80,000 for each year they were wrongfully imprisoned. Lawmakers also created the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions to develop recommendations to prevent future wrongful convictions. On Aug. 12, the panel will present its recommendations to the Legislature.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sponsored the Timothy Cole Act, said the students’ work was vital to the successful exoneration. But he also said “there is a heck of a lot more to do” to prevent wrongful convictions and reform the Texas criminal justice system. He expects the panel’s recommendations will include reform to eyewitness identification, the recording of custodial interrogations and the expansion of access to DNA testing. “Anytime we have a system with so many problems, a system so stacked against us,” Ellis said, “there will always be a role to monitor.”

Related posts are in the exoneration and innocence indexes.

Are There Two Sharon Kellers?"

"Supporters Say Maligned Judge Deserves Credit," is the title of Brandi Grissom's report this morning at the Texas Tribune.  Here are several excerpts:

The state’s largest newspapers want her fired. Her opponents have dubbed her “Killer Keller.” There’s even a website devoted to her impeachment: sharonkiller.com.

But her supporters say there’s more to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals presiding Judge Sharon Keller than the cold-hearted jurist many accounts depict.

Much has been said and written about Keller’s last-minute refusal to accept a death-row inmate’s appeal — Michael Richard was executed the night she infamously said, “We close at 5” — and about the enormous ethics fine she faces for allegedly failing to report millions in personal income. But accounts of Keller’s work to help ensure fair trials for poor defendants are sparse. “She’s gotten a lot of negative publicity, but there’s a lot she’s done that has really helped those that are less fortunate,” said Jim Bethke, executive director of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense.

Keller, who was first elected to the state’s top criminal court in 1994, has become the poster child for all that critics say is wrong with the Texas criminal justice system. In 2007, she refused to keep the court open late to receive an appeal from Richard’s attorneys, who said they needed more time to file the documents because of computer problems. That day, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take up a case that questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty, and courts across the country began delaying executions while the high court mulled the issue. But Richard was executed, the last person in the U.S. to die during the court's de facto death penalty moratorium. This year, Keller received the largest fine in Texas Ethics Commission history — $100,000 — for allegedly failing to disclose income, including stocks, honorariums and real estate interests valued at $2.4 million, on her personal financial statements from 2004 to 2008.

And:

Among the major initiatives that have improved representation for the poor is increased funding for counties to provide defense services. Before 2001, the state gave counties no money to provide indigent defense. Lawyers who did the work often received a pittance, making it difficult for courts to find qualified lawyers to take the cases. Last year, the task force awarded counties statewide $31 million to run public defender offices and provide indigent defense. Andrea Marsh, executive director of the Texas Fair Defense Project, said Keller has worked not only to give counties funds they need for indigent defense, but also to give them incentives for new and innovative programs. Task force grants have helped launch programs like Travis County’s Mental Health Public Defender Office. “She has been supportive of giving more of that money to program improvements and not just giving that money for the same old thing that isn’t working,” Marsh said.

Having judges like Keller on the indigent defense task force isn’t ideal, Marsh said. Oversight of defense lawyers, she said, should be independent of the judiciary in the same way it is for prosecutors. Despite general concerns about potential conflicts of interest, Marsh said Keller has been an effective leader of the task force, knowing that qualified lawyers at the beginning trial stages mean fewer cases for appellate judges to wade through down the line. “The court system doesn’t work if defendants don’t have competent representation,” Marsh said. “It creates all sorts of problems that a court like hers has to deal with later.”

And:

Steve Hall, director of the StandDown Texas Project, which advocates for a death penalty moratorium, said Keller’s two roles as leader of the court and leader of the task force are incomparable. From the bench, she acts as a jurist, meting out life and death decisions with a philosophy that emphasizes finality and favors prosecution. As an administrator, she looks at the overall system instead of individual cases. Both are critical roles, Hall said, but her performance in each should be judged independently.

Earlier coverage of Judge Keller begins with this post.  Related posts are in the Task Force on Indigent Defense and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals indexes.

Caprock Regional PD Approved for Rural Texas Area

The current issue of Texas Lawyer reports, "Funding OK'd for Public Defender Office to Assist 16 Counties."  It's written by Mary Alice Robbins.

With financing from a $566,701 grant, Dickens County and as many as 15 other counties extending from the Panhandle to the Rolling Plains region will address their need for lawyers to represent indigents in criminal cases through a regional public defender program.

On June 9, the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense (TTFID) approved funding for the Caprock Regional Defender Office. Dickens County is the sponsor for the office, which will provide representation to indigents in the other counties through local agreements.

The Fair Defense Act, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2001, requires trial courts to make prompt appointments of attorneys to represent indigents in criminal cases and sets deadlines for getting that done. For example, the act requires a small county to appoint an attorney for an indigent in a misdemeanor case within three days after a request for representation. The act led to the creation of the TTFID.

Dickens County Judge Lesa Arnold says finding an attorney who will accept a court appointment can be difficult for her county, which has a population of approximately 2,600 people.

"There is not a practicing attorney who lives in Dickens County," Arnold says.

And:

Jim Bethke, TTFID's executive director, says the task force proposed the public defender office because of "abnormally low" appointment rates in the 16 counties that potentially could participate. "This program would help those counties meet requirements of the Fair Defense Act," Bethke says.

Data on the TTFID Web site shows the appointment rate statewide and for each county, based on information submitted by the counties. The Web site shows that Dickens County appointed attorneys in only five of the 55 new misdemeanor cases in fiscal year 2009 for an appointment rate of slightly more than 9 percent. In comparison, 210,725 of the 598,777 new misdemeanor cases added statewide during the same period had appointed attorneys, for an appointment rate of almost 35.2 percent.

The Web site also shows that Dickens County appointed attorneys in 20 of the 56 new felony cases added in fiscal year 2009, for an appointment rate of about 35.7 percent. During the same period, 191,936 of the 283,619 new felony cases added statewide had appointed attorneys, for an appointment rate of almost 67.7 percent.

Bryan Wilson, TTFID's grants administrator, says the low appointment rates in Dickens County and the other counties called the task force's attention to the need for a public defender office. Wilson says the office will be phased in, with one attorney employed initially and a maximum of three attorneys if all 16 counties participate.

Dominic Gonzales, a grant program specialist at TTFID, says when the public defender office is at full capacity, it is designed to cover 40 percent of the misdemeanor cases, 50 percent of the felony cases and 90 percent of the juvenile cases in the region. In addition, the grant will provide $126,000 to purchase video conferencing equipment that will enable attorneys to meet with incarcerated clients without having to drive to Dickens.

Related posts are in the indigent defense and  Task Force on Indigent Defense category indexes.

The Harris County Indigent Defense Proposal

"Senator attacks pace to create defender office," is the title of Chris Moran's report in the Houston Chronicle.

The state senator who authored the law allowing Texas counties to establish public defender offices said he is “embarrassed” Harris County still does not have one nine years later.

“The status quo is an inherent conflict of interest,” state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said Thursday. “It is sleazy. It is old school.”

Judges in Harris County courts appoint lawyers to represent indigent defendants.

Ellis and other critics of the system say it compromises defense of the poor because attorneys must advocate before judges on whom they depend for future employment. Ellis said the arrangement is so morally bankrupt that he has approached legal advocacy groups to ask for help reforming Harris County courts.

“I've done my bit of talking to people around the country trying to get them to sue (the county), but it takes tremendous resources,” Ellis said.

The county has applied for $4.4 million from the state Task Force on Indigent Defense to launch a public defender office in October. The county's plan calls for phasing in a hybrid system that would combine elements of a public defender and court-appointed attorneys.

The task force has given the county a month to revise its plan. It suggests including all courts, not just those presently proposed. It also suggests expanding the plan's scope of cases a public defender could handle to include more felonies. It also asks for an independent board to oversee the office and limits on the case loads of its attorneys.

Ellis accused local judges of circumventing the intent of his law by using a system in which each judge can decide his or her own system of providing for indigent defense. He said resistance from judges has resulted in a potentially fatally flawed public defender proposal.

And:

Statewide, 82 counties have added public defenders since Ellis' Fair Defense Act was signed into law in 2001, according to information from his office. Many, however, use it only for capital cases.

“This has gone on for far too long,” Ellis said. “I'm embarrassed as a state legislator and as a citizen of Houston and of Harris County that it has taken this long.”

Earlier coverage of the Harris County proposal begins with this post.

The Temple Daily Telegram reports, "Bell awarded $390K grant for Web system: Will help county track and assign indigent defense cases."  It's written by Paul Romer.

Look for Bell County to move to a Web-based system for the way it assigns and tracks court cases after it was awarded a $397,150 grant this week from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense.

The funding will change the way the county does business with attorneys, County Judge Jon Burrows said.

According to Burrows, the system would help assure that court appointments are made on a random basis, allow officials to track attorney qualifications more efficiently, reduce attorney paperwork and help monitor attorney compliance with the Fair Defense Act.

Burrows said the hope is that the system would be a model for moderately sized counties. Part of the agreement with the task force is that after Bell County develops its system, it would then make its technology available to other counties.

Related posts are in the indigent defense and  Task Force on Indigent Defense category indexes.

Task Force on Indigent Defense Votes to Expand Regional Capital PD

Texas' Task Force for Indigent Defense had a full agenda for its Wednesday meeting.

Besty Blaney files, "Texas panel approves funding for defenders office," for AP.  It's via the Houston Chronicle.

Members of the Task Force for Indigent Defense agreed Wednesday, voting in Austin to approve a modest expansion of the program while putting off larger increases because of state budget concerns, said Lubbock County Courts Coordinator David Slayton.

The panel approved a one-year, $2.2 million grant that will expand the program by 55 counties. The office in Lubbock opened 2 1/2 years ago with 85 counties in West Texas. The additional counties are in far West Texas and south Texas.

Slayton said the task force held off on a more ambitious $27.7 million plan, deciding instead to phase in 100 more counties over the next three years because of concerns over a state budget shortfall that could reach $18 billion.

The 140 counties now eligible under the plan are not liable for the cost to defend those facing lethal injection. Even if fully implemented, the program is available only to counties with populations of less than 300,000.

Together, the 70 counties of the 85 now participating in the West Texas pilot program saved $637,000 in the first two years, officials said.

"It's been a tremendous savings for counties that have had cases," said Jack Stoffregen, the chief public defender for the West Texas program, which has offices in Midland, Amarillo and Lubbock. "I think it's been a great success."

A statewide system would have 88 staffers in 10 offices, including the three now operating. It would be centrally managed from Lubbock.

Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and chairwoman of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, said she was impressed with what the West Texas office has done.

"I appreciate the willingness to try to make this work statewide," she said.

And:

Under the proposal, state funding to the office would gradually decrease over six years, and counties' contributions would increase commensurately. Each county would contribute using a formula based on population and a 10-year average of capital cases.

Once counties fully fund the office, the cost per county will range from $1,000 to $350,000. Conservation estimates place the cost of trying one death penalty case at $250,000.

The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has, "Area defense office covers wider region," written by Logan Carver.

The Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense on Wednesday approved funding that will expand a Lubbock-based capital defense office to represent counties throughout West and South Texas.

The task force approved a $2.2 million grant for fiscal year 2011 that will allow the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases to cover the 4th, 5th and 6th administrative judicial districts. That will be in addition to the 7th and 9th districts already represented under a current grant and county funds.

The 15-person office currently represents indigent defendants in death penalty cases in an 85-county region.

The new coverage area of the office, headed by Lubbock attorney Jack Stoffregen, will comprise 140 counties in West Texas and along the border from South Texas to El Paso, said David Slayton, a Lubbock County court official who worked to get the grant approved.

"This is really just step two now of our long-term planning and goal to expand to the state," Stoffregen said. "It was a really good outcome today, I'm real pleased with it."

Stoffregen said Slayton, Lubbock County and the other people working for the grant decided to ask for one year of funding at a time and build the office over three years, as opposed to doing it all in a year and a half.

"It would have been extremely difficult to locate the number of qualified attorneys, mitigators and investigators to get it all done as quickly as, you know, we would have liked to have done," Stoffregen said.

Slayton said the task force was only approving one fiscal year at a time because of uncertainties about what the legislature will fund next year.

The end goal is to fund indigent capital defense for 240 of Texas' 254 counties - every county with a population of less than 300,000.

The Task Force also examined a proposal to begin a public defender office in Harris County, the state's largest.  "Harris County's request for public defender grant in trouble," is the Houston Chronicle report by Chris Moran.

Harris County risks losing out on $4.4 million in state money to launch a public defender office unless it can in the next month improve its plan to roll out the office in October.

Judges currently appoint defense counsel to the indigent, making Harris the largest county in the nation without a public defender office. Its application for a state grant envisions a hybrid system in which a public defender office would gradually take on more cases.

The application is flawed, according to ministers, legal defense advocates and, most importantly, the state board that awards the grants.

The Task Force on Indigent Defense, created by the Texas Legislature in 2001, has asked the county to spend some of its own money on the office, expand its scope and create an independent oversight board.

If the revisions adequately address what James Bethke, the task force's director, calls requests for “clarification,” the county would be well-positioned for a grant. If the revisions do not pass muster at the task force's August board meeting, Bethke said, the county would have to wait a year for another shot.

“We respect local control,” Bethke said of Harris County's plan, but “certain principles … do need to be met.”

On Wednesday a task force committee gave the county until July 12 to fix its plan.

The county's current plan has the state covering the entire cost of the office's first year of operation. Bethke said the task force is looking for the county to cover some of the administrative costs so state dollars can go directly to legal services. The task force also suggests:

• An independent oversight board to insulate the public defender from Commissioners Court and judges;

• A case load limit to avoid overloading defense attorneys so much that they cannot do their jobs effectively;

• An office that takes felony cases, not just misdemeanors and felony appeals as currently envisioned.

Local ministers pushed for those revisions at Commissioners Court on Tuesday.

The Rev. William Lawson advised the court to vastly expand the office's scope.

“That proposal is not strong enough to help the thousands who need legal assistance,” Lawson said.

Earlier coverage of the capital and Harris County proposals at the links.  Related posts are in the indigent defense and  Task Force on Indigent Defense category indexes.

More Defender Offices in Store?

AP reports, "Panel could expand Texas public defenders office," via the Houston Chronicle.  It's written by Betsy Blaney.

Members of the Task Force for Indigent Defense will vote Wednesday in Austin on whether to approve a $27.7 million grant that would expand statewide a pilot program that's been operating in West Texas for 2 1/2 years.

If approved, 240 of the state's 254 counties would not be liable for the cost to defend those facing lethal injection. Only counties with populations under 300,000 are eligible to participate.

Together, the 70 counties of the 85 now participating in the West Texas pilot program saved $637,000 in the first two years, officials said.

"It's been a tremendous savings for counties that have had cases," said Jack Stoffregen, the chief public defender for the West Texas program, which has offices in Midland, Amarillo and Lubbock. "I think it's been a great success."

A statewide system would have 88 staffers in 10 offices, including the three now operating. It would be centrally managed from Lubbock.

Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and chairwoman of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, said she was impressed with what the West Texas office has done.

"I appreciate the willingness to try to make this work statewide," she said.

Texas, the nation's most active death penalty state, often has been criticized for not providing adequate defense for those facing lethal injection, including an instance in the 1980s when an attorney fell asleep during crucial stages of testimony.

And:

If the grant is approved, counties over six years will take over funding using a cost-sharing approach.

Under the proposal, state funding to the office would gradually decrease over six years, and counties' contributions would increase commensurately. Each county would contribute using a formula based on population and a 10-year average of capital cases.

Once counties fully fund the office, the cost per county will range from $1,000 to $350,000. Conservation estimates place the cost of trying one death penalty case at $250,000.

Earlier coverage of the possible expansion is here; related posts are in the Task Force on Indigent Defense category index.

Can Good Start Be Enough

That's the title of Lisa Falkenberg's column in today's Houston Chronicle.  LINK  Here's an excerpt from this must-read:

It may have been a hard-fought milestone for Harris County, but the proposed public defender office that finally won Commissioners' Court approval earlier this year was never intended to be anything other than a good start.

Now the question is whether a good start is good enough.

Not only have lawmakers, national criminal justice organizations and a diverse assemblage of local clergy suggested improvements to the proposal, concerns recently have been raised by the state task force weighing Harris County's application for a $4.4 million state discretionary grant to set up the public defender office.

The Task Force on Indigent Defense, a 13-member group made up of judges, county executives, lawmakers and defense lawyers, has voiced concern over several deficiencies in the county's plan and is asking for clarification on issues such as case load standards, oversight and independence of the office, long-term strategy, and which courts will participate.

Failure to address any of these issues could put full funding at risk. And it could derail an effort to improve representation for the poor and mentally ill, whose defense is often in the hands of over-burdened attorneys appointed by elected judges who are concerned with moving their dockets and who control how much, if anything, is spent on investigators and experts to build a case.

“I think certainly portions of the grant are in jeopardy,” said Andrea Marsh, executive director of the nonprofit Texas Fair Defense Project. “Partial funding is certainly something I'd worry about if I were a Harris County official.”

Caprice Cosper, director of the county's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, said she anticipated some of the task force questions. But she said it's too early to offer specifics on how Harris County would resolve deeper problems, such as slow buy-in from judges.

“I think you're asking questions that nobody knows the answers to right now,” Cosper told me. But she said she didn't expect the proposal to fall apart under the weight of the task force's concerns.

Getting more judges to commit to using public defenders will be one of the biggest challenges. While all 15 county courts at law are expected to use a public defender office for mentally ill defendants in misdemeanor cases, only nine of the 22 district courts are on board to use it for appellate cases, and five for felony trial cases. Two of the three juvenile court judges have agreed to take part.

State law calls for county-wide uniformity in any indigent defense system. But the term isn't defined, so for years Harris County has gotten around the requirement by arguing that its uniform policy was, in essence, that each judge could have his or her own policy.

Earlier coverage of the issue in Harris County is here and here.  Related posts are in the indigent defense and Task Force on Indigent Defense indexes.

Texas Needs Public Defenders

That's the title of an OpEd by State Senator Rodney Ellis.  LINK   It appeared in the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle.

It has been more than 45 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that American citizens who can't afford a lawyer have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in state court. A unanimous 1963 decision in the Gideon case stated that, “In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him.” The decision sought to protect defendants against abuses by government authorities and ensure the fair enforcement of the law, for rich and poor alike.

Earlier this month, the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee discussed the quality of indigent defense in Texas. The hearing was held in anticipation of the 10-year anniversary of the Fair Defense Act (FDA), which established indigent defense standards in Texas and was authored by Sen. Rodney Ellis and then-Rep. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, now a state senator. Witnesses testified that there has been increasing scrutiny of state indigent defense systems around the country, including by the National Right to Counsel Committee, a prominent, bipartisan group that has documented how indigent defense systems nationally are struggling with inadequate funding, poor quality of legal representation, excessive workloads and lack of independence.

Texas has improved its indigent defense system since 2001. The Fair Defense Act provided state funding to subsidize a service that previously had been funded only by counties. The Task Force on Indigent Defense was created to administer these funds, provide oversight, and set policies to improve the system. The FDA set standards for the prompt appointment of counsel, and requires judges to have a “fair, neutral and non-discriminatory” method of appointing counsel to reduce the perception of cronyism by judges mainly appointing lawyers who contributed to their election campaigns.

Since the adoption of the FDA, indigent counsel appointments in Texas have increased by 45 percent, from 324,412 in 2002 to 470,625 in 2009. This may have helped reduce jail costs as more defendants are released on bond or under pre-trial supervision. There are also now 16 public defender offices serving 91 counties regionally or in specific counties. Harris County, the most populous county in the nation without a public defender office, is set to start a public defender office later this year. These offices hire their own lawyers and provide support services, just like district attorney offices do. If run well, public defenders can be cost-effective while providing quality representation. Texas public defender offices specializing in serving mentally ill defendants have reduced guilty dispositions, increased the number of defendants receiving probation, and assisted in getting for defendants services that reduce recidivism.

Progress has been made, but we still face significant challenges in Texas.

And:

Because public defender offices have proven to be cost-effective and more accountable to taxpayers, we should expand their use and get the state to financially support these offices to relieve the counties of increasing funding pressures. Texas should also experiment with removing judges from directly selecting and supervising indigent defense lawyers. Judges don't pick the prosecutor for a trial; nor should they choose the defense lawyer.

Defenseless

That's the title of Brandi Grissom's lengthy examination of Texas indigent defense system.  LINK  It's a must read.  Here's the opening:

Texas is reaching a crisis point, putting itself at risk of a civil rights lawsuit — or worse, a total meltdown of the criminal justice system — because it so severely shortchanges the system designed to ensure impoverished accused criminals get adequate legal representation, advocates told a Senate committee last week.

“We are facing a real crossroads in indigent defense because of money,” Jeff Blackburn, general counsel for the Texas Innocence Project told members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. “The money in these counties is going to start running out.”

Nine years ago, before Texas adopted the Fair Defense Act, the state was considered abysmal in legal circles when it came to providing representation for the poor. Texas had more people in jail, more people on death row and executed more people than nearly any other state, but there was no mechanism to provide decent legal defense for the poor. Proponents and critics of the current system agree the situation has improved since 2001, when lawmakers started requiring counties to implement minimum representation standards. Thousands more poor defendants are getting attorneys now, and 91 counties are served in some capacity by a public defender system. “We have made such huge progress in that area that we’re no longer the laughing stock of the nation,” Tony Fabelo, director of research at the Council of State Governments Justice Center, told lawmakers.

It’s better, but it’s not good enough, advocates say. “It’s just not as bad,” Blackburn says. While courts spent more than $186 million on indigent defense in 2009, according to the Task Force on Indigent Defense, the state chipped in only $28 million — barely enough to meet the Constitutional requirement to provide adequate legal representation, advocates say. With state lawmakers looking at the possibility of an $18 billion budget hole next biennium, it's highly unlikely the Legislature will put any more money into indigent defense. Advocates are clinging for dear life to the little money they already get, asking that leaders ensure the dollars are spent effectively. And they’re worried that as the economic troubles trickle down to local governments, some of the indigent programs could disappear altogether.

Before 2001, there were a scant few public defender offices in Texas, and the ones that existed had no well-defined minimum operating standards and no state funding, Fabelo told the Committee. The Fair Defense Act required counties to create systems to provide representation for the poor. Counties can have judges assign attorneys from a list of lawyers, they can create public defender offices that employ attorneys to represent the poor, or they can create a system in which private attorneys contract with local courts to provide services. Statewide, there are now 16 public defender offices that serve 91 counties. Most counties, about 71 percent, allow judges to assign lawyers to indigent accused criminals, according to the Texas Fair Defense Project.

Related posts are in the indigent defense and Task Force on Indigent Defense indexes.

Harris County Moves Forward on Indigent Defense Reforms

"Harris County OKs hybrid public defender office," by Chris Moran is in today's Houston Chronicle.

The Harris County Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to start a public defender office on an experimental basis, as long as the state covers the $4.4 million cost for the first year.

The unanimous vote authorizes the county to apply for a grant from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense. If awarded the money, Harris County would open an office with lawyers dedicated to representing indigent defendants full time in October. It would start with mis­demeanor mental health cases and felony appeals cases.

Within two years, it would expand to a staff of 68 handling about 6,400 criminal cases of all types in the civil and district courts. The office's lawyers would be involved in about half of all felony appeals, about a quarter of juvenile cases and smaller percentages of adult misdemeanors and felonies, according to projections provided by Caprice Cosper, director of the county's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

A public defender office would not replace the current system, in which judges choose defense counsel for the indigent from a randomly generated list of lawyers. The result would be a hybrid system for indigent defense in which the public defender and judge-appointed lawyers would share the caseload.

And:

Precinct 1 Commissioner El Franco Lee, its chairman, said he hopes a public defender office will relieve jail overcrowding by shortening the time inmates have to wait for trials.

“What happens now is a logjam. You've got a lot of cases, you've got a lot of appointments, and you've got a lot of hodgepodge of results,” Lee said. He said his hope is for “a result that is consistent, fair and with the amount of money that is being spent on indigent defense.”

There is a public defender office for some non-capital cases in 21 of the state's 254 counties; 70 counties use a public defender office for capital cases.

Earlier coverage from Harris County on the topic begins here.  Related posts are in the indigent defense and Task Force on Indigent Defense category index.

Expansion in Store for Regional PD Office?

"Defenders' office could see expansion," is the title of a report in today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal by Logan Carver.

A Lubbock-based capital defense office might soon need a name change.

County commissioners on Monday submitted an application for a $7.65 million grant from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense to greatly increase the scope of the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases.

If approved, the office that has already saved member counties in West Texas an estimated $637,000 in its two-year existence would expand drastically and become responsible for indigent capital defense statewide.

"From a nationwide perspective, it really elevates Texas' standards to show Texas is willing to provide the best possible defense they can for individuals charged with capital murder and willing to take whatever steps that requires to make sure that happens," said David Slayton, director of court administration for Lubbock County.

Slayton said the expansion would be good for Lubbock County because, as host county, it would be spearheading the state's indigent capital defense initiative.

The grant for the Public Defender for Capital Cases would fund defense for 240 of Texas' 254 counties. That's every county with a population of less than 300,000.

The office would remain headquartered in Lubbock, but would have 10 satellite offices and include a chief public defender, assistant chief public defender, 29 attorneys, 16 investigators, 23 mitigation specialists and 18 legal secretaries.

"One of the benefits I see is we'll have some consistency from office to office around the state," said Chief Public Defender Jack Stoffregen.

Stoffregen would be responsible for increasing the staff from 15 to 90 people.

The West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases currently serves 71 counties in an 85-county region.

The article notes that a decision is expected in June.  Earlier coverage of the office is here; related posts are in the Task Force on Indigent Defense category index.

Cole Advisory Panel Meets

The Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions met yesterday in Austin.  Today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports, "Timothy Cole panel questions the creation of a Texas innocence commission," written by Dave Montgomery.

An advisory panel bearing the name of a wrongfully convicted inmate from Fort Worth is apparently leaning against recommending the creation of a state innocence commission amid concerns that it would create a new bureaucracy and duplicate work already being performed in Texas law schools.

The concept of an innocence commission to investigate whether convictions are wrongful was among several recommendations discussed Thursday by the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel. Cole, who died in prison after being convicted for a sexual assault that he didn't commit, was recently given a posthumous pardon by Gov. Rick Perry.

The panel deferred votes until its next meeting, but members generally expressed reservations about creating an innocence commission. Some members called for bolstering similar work now under way in four Texas law schools.

The University of Texas at Austin, Texas Tech, the University of Houston and Texas Southern University have projects or clinics that examine questionable convictions. Similar projects are in operation across the country.

The commission's stance generally tracks that of Perry, who believes a commission "would create an added layer of government," said Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle. Perry's deputy general counsel, Mary Anne Wiley, is a member of the panel.

And:

Cory Session, Cole's brother, said he supports the panel's position and complimented it for its efforts to improve the state's criminal justice system. Cole's case has come to symbolize widening efforts in Texas and other states to correct legal weaknesses that have led to improper convictions. The panel was created by the 2009 Legislature as part of a push that also expanded benefits for former inmates who were exonerated after being cleared by DNA evidence.

"We're pleased with the work they're putting forth so far," said Session, who attended Thursday's meeting along with his mother, Ruby Session, who led the family's 25-year-long battle to clear Cole. He introduced her at the meeting as "the mother of the wrongful conviction movement."

Two exonerated former inmates, Stephen Phillips and Christopher Scott, also addressed the panel.

"I knew I was innocent. Hardly anybody else did," said Phillips, who spent 26 years behind bars before being released in 2008. "I was afraid I was going to die."

He said that efforts like those of the Cole panel have raised hopes among innocent people behind bars.

Earlier coverage of the panel and of Tim Cole's posthumous exoneration begins with this post.  An OpEd coauthored by Cory Session on wrongful convictions and DNA testing is noted here.

Members of Tim Cole Panel Stop by His Grave Site

That's the title of Alex Branch's report in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  LINK

Members of a panel reviewing flaws in the Texas legal system visited Tarrant County on Thursday to study the district attorney’s much-praised policy of making its case files open to defense attorneys.

Before they left, several members of the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions paid their respects to the man in whose name they pursue change.

Under a heavy, cold rain, they joined Cole’s mother, Ruby Session, and his brother, Cory Session, at Cole’s headstone at Mount Olivet Cemetery in north Fort Worth.

Cole, of Fort Worth, died in prison in 1999 while serving a 25-year sentence for a crime in Lubbock that he did not commit.

"People often say that the system always worked," Cory Session told the group as he stood over his brother’s grave. "This is one case where it never worked."

Cole was exonerated by a Travis County judge early last year after DNA testing cleared him of the 1985 sexual assault of a Texas Tech University student. Gov. Rick Perry recently said he will pardon Cole.

Jim Bethke, who heads the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense and sits on the Cole panel, said the visit reinforced the panel’s sense of purpose.

"This is the man it is named after," he said. "We’re working so this doesn’t happen again."

The panel’s goal is to develop legislative remedies to false identification by eyewitnesses, fraudulent testimony from snitches and other criminal justice flaws that could land the wrong person behind bars.

Panel members converged on Tarrant County mainly to learn more about the open-file policy, which allows defense attorneys full access to case files before trial.

The policy was enacted under late District Attorney Tim Curry.

"Tarrant County has a reputation of being among the best in the state, if not in the country," Bethke said. "We wanted to get a closer look at how it works."

Earlier coverage of Tim Cole's posthumous exoneration and the advisory panel that bears his name is here; the issue of posthumous clemency, here.

The Tim Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions

Dave Montgomery writes, "Tim Cole panel begins yearlong look at judicial safeguards," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

A blue-ribbon panel named after a wrongfully convicted inmate from Fort Worth is beginning a prolonged mission toward reforming criminal justice in Texas, fueled by a ballooning controversy over the possibility that the state may have executed an innocent man.

The Tim Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions will conduct its first meeting today, starting a yearlong effort toward recommending new safeguards against erroneous convictions.

The panel’s review parallels an uproar over the shakeup of a state commission seeking to determine whether a flawed arson investigation led to the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, an unemployed mechanic from Corsicana.

Cole was wrongfully convicted in 1986 and died in prison 13 years later before being posthumously exonerated this year. His brother, Cory Session, also of Fort Worth, said he plans to cite the Willingham case when he addresses the panel.

"It’s hard to overlook the possibility that an innocent man was executed," Session said. "Just like my brother Tim till the day he died, they both said, 'I didn’t do it.’ We just can’t take it lightly anymore when somebody says they’re innocent."

And:

Tim Cole became the face of the legislative effort that led to creation of the panel during the 2009 session. "Texas still has a long way to go to ensure that the innocent remain free and the guilty are brought to justice," said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sponsored legislation creating the panel.

The 10-member panel, which will work under the umbrella of the state’s Task Force on Indigent Defense, will conduct a study and recommend new laws to the 2011 Legislature. Its goals include overcoming mistaken eyewitness identifications and false confessions — which account for a large percentage of wrongful convictions in Texas — and increased funding to defend indigent people.

Texas ranked 44th in funding for indigent defense in 2005, spending $6.14 per capita, according to Ellis’s office. Texas has had 41 convictions overturned by DNA, more than any other state.

More on the work of the Task Force is in the Task Force on Indigent Defense index; more on Tim Cole's exoneration, here.

First Texas Private Defender Office to Open

"First Private Criminal Defender Program in Texas to Commence," is the report in Texas Lawyer.

A first-of-its-kind program in Texas is scheduled to open Jan. 15 in Lubbock, providing specially trained private practitioners to represent indigent criminal defendants who are mentally ill or retarded.

Philip Wischkaemper , a Lubbock Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (LCDLA) member who helped develop the program, says, "It's the first private defender service in the state."

Private attorneys appointed by the director of the Lubbock Special Needs Defenders' Office, a nonprofit corporation formed by the LCDLA in October, will represent the indigent clients, says Lubbock solo Ted Hogan, a member of the corporation's board of directors.

On Dec. 22, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court approved a contract with the corporation to run the program. Precinct 4 Commissioner Patti Jones says the commissioners see the program as a way to ensure that jailed indigents with mental health issues receive legal assistance within 24 hours after they are arrested, so they can receive the services they need. "That's been a void in the system," Jones says.

On June 18, the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense awarded a state-funded four-year grant totaling $419,360 to Lubbock County to set up the program.

David Slayton, Lubbock County's director of court administration, says the amount of state funding for the program will decrease in increments over the first four years of operations as the amount the county provides increases. In the fifth year, the county will assume full responsibility for funding the program, Slayton says.

Hogan says the county will pay lawyers who represent mentally impaired clients, but the Special Needs Defenders' Office director will review the bills that the attorneys submit for payment.

Wischkaemper, the capital assistance attorney for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association , says a peer review committee will determine which attorney applicants qualify for appointments.

Earlier coverage of this innovative program is here.  Bexar County (San Antonio) has its own program to deal with mentally ill defendants, noted here.  Travis County (Austin) opened the nation's first dedicated public defender office to represent mentally ill defendants, as noted here.

More News of the West Texas Regional PD Office

Today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal carries the editorial, "Regional public defender's office has worked well."

THE CONCEPT OF establishing a regional public defender's office for capital murder cases was centered around providing good legal representation to defendants while protecting counties from excessive legal fees for representation of indigent clients.

It was a promising idea on the part of attorney Philip Wischkaemper and David Slayton, director of court administration for Lubbock County, that has lived up to its promise.

Slightly more than a year after veteran attorney Jack Stoffregen was hired to head the office, the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases is operating smoothly and exceeding expectations.

The 11-person staff is currently handling 11 capital cases, including one from Lubbock County, among the 65 counties that are participating in the program. The population size of each county determines the amount the county contributes to the program.

Before the public defender's office was established, each county was responsible for its own indigent defense costs for capital cases. A county with a large population such as Lubbock could absorb such costs more easily, but the smaller counties were in a position to be financially hurt.

And:

"Its just amazing to see that it's not only done what we thought it would do, but I think the office has done even more than I envisioned," said Mr. Slayton.

The office is based in Lubbock but has branches in Amarillo and Midland. Because the sole focus is capital cases, the staff is able to get to work immediately on a case and spend a lot of time preparing for it.

Mr. Slayton's comparing participating in the program to buying an insurance policy is apt, especially for smaller counties.

The counties are saving money and are being protected from huge financial burdens, and the defendants are getting quality representation. Establishing the office was a good idea that has paid off well.

Earlier coverage of the office begins with this post.

Capital-Defense Office Growing

That's the headline in today's Amarillo Globe-News about the West Texas Regional Capital PD's office.  LINK

Two years ago, the office of the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases was nothing but a dream.

Now, a year after Lubbock attorney Jack Stoffregen took the reins of the fledgling program, the office is providing financial savings and quality representation beyond expectations.

"It's just amazing to see that it's not only done what we thought it would do, but I think the office has done more than I even envisioned," said David Slayton, director of court administration for Lubbock County.

The Lubbock-based office also has branches in Amarillo and Midland comprising an 11-person staff focused on the defense of indigent defendants charged with a capital offense in which the state is seeking the death penalty.

The quality of defense exceeds anything Stoffregen was able to do in private practice and the office saves participating counties thousands of dollars on indigent defense.

Sixty-five counties have signed on to the program.

Those counties account for 64,000 square miles of West Texas, with a population base of 1.5 million people.

The office is funded by a grant from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, but participating counties agreed to a five-year payment plan where the counties take on more and more financial responsibility until the office is fully funded by the counties in the fifth year.

Earlier coverage is here.

News of the West Texas Regional Capital PD Office

"Officials tout dividends from regional public defender program," is a report from the today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.  It's written by Logan Carver.

Two years ago, the office of the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases was nothing but a dream.

Now, a year after Lubbock attorney Jack Stoffregen took the reins of the fledgling program, the office is providing financial savings and quality of representation beyond expectations.

"It's just amazing to see that it's not only done what we thought it would do, but I think the office has done more than I even envisioned," said David Slayton, director of court administration for Lubbock County.

The Lubbock-based office also has branches in Amarillo and Midland comprising an 11-person staff dedicated entirely to the defense of indigent defendants charged with a capital offense in which the state is seeking the death penalty.

The quality of defense exceeds anything Stoffregen was able to do in private practice and the office saves participating counties thousands of dollars on indigent defense.

Sixty-five counties have signed on to the program.

Those counties account for 64,000 square miles of West Texas, with a population base of 1.5 million people.

The office is funded by a grant from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, but participating counties agreed to a five-year payment plan where the counties take on more and more financial responsibility until the office is fully funded by the counties in the fifth year.

Stoffregen moved into the office last November and began filling positions.

The office was fully staffed by the end of July with three attorneys, three mitigation experts, one fact investigator and two administrative assistants in the Lubbock office. There is an attorney in the Amarillo office and one in the Midland office.

The 11-person staff is currently handling 11 cases.

Earlier coverage of the office begins with this post.

Lubbock Examines Private Defender for Mental Health Docket

Mary Alice Robbins reports, "First and Goal: LCDLA Close to Creating Nonprofit to Run Private Defender's
Office," in the current Texas Lawyer

Concerned that mentally impaired indigents too often languish in their jail, Lubbock County officials are trying a new approach - a private defender's office. It's a hybrid; a cross between a public defender's office and the assigned counsel system used in most Texas counties.

Lubbock solo Ted Hogan says the Lubbock Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (LCDLA) is creating a nonprofit entity that will seek to contract with the county to run the private defender's office, which will assign attorneys in private practice to represent indigent defendants who are mentally ill or retarded. The courts would no longer appoint attorneys in those cases.

David Slayton, Lubbock County's director of court administration, says the County Commissioners Court will decide Aug. 25 whether the county can negotiate a contract with the LCDLA's nonprofit entity without going through a formal bidding process. The aim is to get the private defender's office up and running this fall.

"This literally is the first of its type in Texas," says James D. "Jim" Bethke, director of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, of the office being developed in Lubbock.

Bethke says he originally talked to Lubbock County officials and the criminal-defense bar about starting a public defender's office for mental health, but the idea did not generate much enthusiasm.

Slayton says a public defender's office would provide possibly two or three attorneys to represent indigents with mental health issues. The private defender's office will have access to attorneys in the private defense bar, and between 10 and 15 attorneys are expected to take the cases, he says.

In April 2007, Travis County opened the first stand-alone public defender's office for mental health cases. Jeanette Kinard, director of the Travis County Mental Health Public Defender, says her office is part of county government.

Kinard says her office, which has two attorneys, two social workers, two case workers and support staff, handles only misdemeanor cases for clients with certain types of mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, major depression and bipolar disorder.

The mental health index is here.

Dallas County to Keep Appellate PD

The Dallas Morning News report is "Dallas County to keep public defender's appellate division."

The Dallas County public defender’s appellate division is safe for now.      

County commissioners agreed today to keep the division of five lawyers intact after hearing support for the unit from judges as well as a state judicial task force that said the county’s lawyers are cost effective.

Commissioners initially had considered dissolving the 20-month-old division to save $250,000, part of a budget-cutting exercise to close a $34 million budget shortfall.

The commissioners several weeks ago had questioned the division’s cost-effectiveness since not all judges were using their public defenders. Commissioner John Wiley Price said this morning during a budget hearing that he’s encouraged that judges vow to assign more cases to the public defenders.

In a July 24 letter to the commissioners, the district judges said they were pleased with the public defender’s appeals lawyers.

“We find the division to be a valuable resource and are of the opinion that the division is providing high quality representation, in a timely and efficient manner,” the letter stated.

 

And:

 

The commissioners also heard from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, which oversees compliance with the 2001 Fair Defense Act. The task force concluded in a recent report that the appeals division is cost-effective and should be continued and perhaps even expanded.

Wesley Shackelford, the task force’s special counsel, appeared this morning to brief commissioners on the report’s findings that public defenders cost $72 per hour while court-appointed attorneys cost $100 an hour for appeals work.

Earlier coverage is here.

Indigent Defense in Dallas

"State report says Dallas County shouldn't cut public defender's appeal unit," by Kevin Krause.

The Dallas County public defender's office wants to prevent its relatively new appeals division from becoming a casualty of this year's budget crisis.

And it's getting some help from the state.

County commissioners plan to dissolve the 20-month-old division to save $250,000, part of a budget-cutting exercise to close a $34 million budget shortfall.

Commissioners have said that the unit isn't cost-effective and that the work should be left to court-appointed lawyers.

But a new report from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, which oversees compliance with the 2001 Fair Defense Act, says the appeals division is cost-effective and should be continued and perhaps even expanded. The report also said the county's caseload expectations for public defenders are unreasonably high.

Public defender officials will ask commissioners next Monday to preserve the appeals unit.

Lawyers from the public defender's office cost $72 per hour while court-appointed attorneys cost $100 an hour for appeals work, the report said. The task force's July 15 study said public defenders are cheaper because expenses are consolidated in one office and lawyers can share research.

The five lawyers in the appeals division are all experienced, and judges speak highly of them, the report said.

Ryan Brown, the county's budget director, said public defenders spend more hours on cases, which increases overall costs. He also said public defenders, unlike private lawyers, are paid when they are sick, injured and on vacation. There are also indirect costs such as office space and supplies, he said.

Howard County Joins Regional Capital PD

Midland's KWES-TV station reports, "Howard County Joins Public Defender Task Force."

It cost them nothing to join, but it could save thousands of tax dollars.  Howard County Commissioners said yes, Monday morning, to joining the Public Defender Task Force, all to cut the cost of paying for a public defender in a death penalty case.

Howard County averages one capital murder case every ten years, according to Judge Mark Barr, it's a matter of doing your math.  And just like an insurance policy, you never know when you're going to need it, "If you had two, it's a good deal.  If you don't have any, it's a bad deal.  If you have one, it's about the same."

It would cost Howard County, anywhere between $80,000.00 and $200,000.00 for a capital murder case.  So it's no wonder commissioners voted to join the Public Defender Task Force, which would bring that cost down, considerably.

Judge Barr tells NewsWest 9, they are missing one key player in the game, "Howard County does not have an attorney that is certified to do capital murder cases."

There will be no expense to the county this year but as the judge explains, the fees will vary from year to year, "In 2009, we'll pay this task force a little over $10,000 and in 2011, it's a little over $8,000.  I believe it escalates in 2012, to a little over 20,000 dollars."

Earlier coverage is here.

Howard County, Texas

The Big Spring Herald reports, "County to Consider Joing Public Defender Task Force."

Howard County commissioners are expected to consider joining an 85-county public defender task force Monday morning, in an effort to keep costs down on capital murder cases.

According to Jack Stoffregen, an attorney with the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases task force, the goal of the organization is for counties to pool their resources to help pay for the rising costs of providing defense counsel for death penalty cases.

“The cost of capital cases to counties is enormous,” he said, estimating that Howard County could end up spending anywhere between $80,000 and $200,000 per death penalty trial. He said the cost to Howard County taxpayers under the task force would be slightly more than $53,000 over a four-year period.

“It would be like any other kind of insurance,” Howard County Judge Mark Barr said. “It would be good if you needed it and a normal expense when you didn't.”

The timing is coincidental, however, as Howard County District Attorney Hardy Wilkerson is faced with a decision whether to re-seek the death penalty for the county's only death row inmate, whose sentence was recently overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Billy Ray Nelson, sentenced to death for the February 1991 fatal stabbing of Charla Wheat, had his sentence overturned in December 2006. At that time, the court ordered a new punishment phase trial for Nelson, who has been on death row for almost 16 years.

Earlier coverage of the West Texas Regional Public Defenders office is here.

Lubbock Examines Rothgery Implications

KJTV-TV of Lubbock reports, "Lubbock Not In Compliance With Indigent Defense Process."

Lubbock County isn't the only one that hasn't been in compliance: 252 other Texas counties also need to get on the ball to change their indigent defense process.

The Supreme Court ruled last month many Texas counties are too slow in getting council for indigent defendants.

Lubbock County is one of them.

Currently the county appoints attorneys to indigent defendants within 72 hours of their initial appearance, but only if they are in  jail.

Those out on bond sometimes wait up to five weeks to hear from their designated council.

Court Administrator David Slayton says there is a good reason behind this.

"There are difficulties in appointing attorney for someone on bond," Slayton said. "How do we notify them who their attorney is? There are some difficulties. Those things have always been in the back of our minds, lets wait till we have defendant before us, and we can talk to them about their financial status."

    

From now on, the clock starts ticking after each defendant's arraignment, whether they are in jail or not. The county has 72 hours to get impoverished defendants a court appointed attorney.

"The adversarial process begins for everyone at initial appearance that happens within 24 hours of arrest," Slayton said, "therefore have to appoint council for everyone within a three day time frame."

The reference is to last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rothgery v. Gillespie County.  Coverage of the ruling is here.

The State of Indigent Defense in Texas

The current Texas Lawyer has a major article by John Council and Jonathan Fox, "Common Clashes: Politics, Pressure and the Public Defender's Office."  Here's an excerpt from the beginning of the article:

On June 10, the Task Force on Indigent Defense was preparing to release a second edition of its "Blueprint for Creating a Public Defender Office in Texas" when it thought better of that idea.

The reason? That very day Brad Lollar, chief of the Dallas County Public Defender's Office — the largest and oldest one in Texas — had turned in his resignation to the Dallas County Commissioners Court amidst controversy.

The blueprint "was ready to go, but we thought we better wait a week," says Wesley Shackelford, special counsel for the task force. "I mean, we didn't want those two stories coming out the same day."

The task force eventually released the blueprint eight days later. It outlines how counties can meet the requirements of the Fair Defense Act of 2001 — a Texas law that requires timely appointment of counsel to indigent defendants — and save money at the same time by setting up public defenders' offices.

Shackelford says he considers the Dallas PD's office a "model" for other counties. The blueprint cites the Dallas PD's office for providing "zealous legal defense to individuals who cannot afford representation" — goals that are accomplished through "hiring and training competent attorneys and providing meaningful investigation of cases."

But there's one topic the blueprint can't address: navigating the political mine field that comes with the job as a chief PD. It's a difficult situation that Lollar and some of his predecessors have faced since the office was established by the Dallas County Commissioners Court in 1983. And those historical political clashes with the commissioners court — which controls the budget for the PD's office — ultimately led to his resignation, Lollar says.

Howard County Mulls Joining PD Pool

The Big Spring Herald reports, "County considers capital crime insurance."

Howard County commissioners are considering joining an 85-county public defender task force in order to hold down costs of capital murder cases.

The goal of the task force is for counties to pool their resources to help pay for the rising costs of providing defense counsel for death penalty cases.

Jack Stoffregen, an attorney with the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases task force, addressed commissioners during their Monday meeting and said his organization could end up saving the county tens of thousands of dollars by providing qualified public defenders in capital cases.

“The cost of capital cases to counties is enormous,” he said, estimating that Howard County would end up spending anywhere between $80,000 and $200,000 per death penalty trial.

The cost to Howard County taxpayers would be slightly more than $53,000 over a four-year period, he noted.

For that cost, the task force would provide two defense attorneys, a mitigation specialist and an investigator to anyone charged with a capital crime.

Stoffregan likened participation in the task force to an insurance policy.

Earlier coverage is here.

Harris County to Consider Public Defender Office

Harris County (Houston) Commissioners have instructed the county's budget officer to examine public defender offices with the possibility of creating one for the county.

Let's begin with Liz Austin Peterson's news report in yesterday's Houston Chronicle, "Public defender office  to get close look."

Commissioners Court agreed Tuesday to study whether Harris County should create a public defenders office and what kind of program might work.

The court voted 4-0 to instruct Budget Officer Dick Raycraft to conduct the study and report his findings by late September. Commissioner Steve Radack missed most of the meeting, but said he supported studying the issue.

Harris County is the largest urban area in the nation without a public defenders office. Instead, judges develop a list of independent lawyers who can represent indigent defendants.

After a lawyer is assigned a case, the judge decides whether to grant the defense's requests for investigators, experts and compensation.

Critics of the current system, including Democratic state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, say poor defendants too often end up with incompetent or inexperienced lawyers or lawyers who lack the time and resources to effectively represent them.

And:

County Judge Ed Emmett said he would support creating the office if it would level the playing field for poor defendants, even if it costs more.

"This is about more than money," Emmett said. "At the end of the day we have to have the fairest system possible."

Radack said earlier this week that he would not support the creation of a public defenders office unless it saved the county money.

The county spent about $22 million on court-appointed defense attorneys last year to handle about 52,000 cases in county and district courts, Raycraft said.

A 2006 study by the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense found the state's public defender offices improved the quality of legal representation for poor people while helping counties contain costs.

Raycraft said his staff will study programs in Texas and across the nation to figure out what might work in Harris County and how much it would cost.

Texas has 15 public defender offices.

Lisa Falkenberg has commentary in today's Houston Chronicle, "The voyage to defending the indigent."  Here's an extended excerpt:

Indeed, a recent report on the juvenile arm of the Harris County system by the Annie E. Casey Foundation noted that it is "rather remarkable that a site this size does not have either an established Public Defender system," or similar options.

A well-run public defender office could only benefit a lopsided system with few quality control measures in which defense attorneys are appointed by elected judges worried about docket loads who decide how much, if any money, will be spent on investigators and experts to build a fair defense.

It's not like starting a public defender office is a highly risky endeavor. Even if an office is established in Harris County, Texas law gives each judge discretion on whether to allow public defenders in his or her courtroom. And any system would be inherently hybrid, still allowing private attorneys to be appointed to complex, capital cases or those with multiple defendants.

Experts I talked to said that, nationwide, few jurisdictions that go to a public defender office ever go back. Jim Bethke, director of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, could only name one public defender office in Texas that approached failure (Wichita County), but even those folks have "righted the ship."

So, once the "if" question is answered, the conundrum will be "how?"

The options are plenty.

Is a wholesale reinvention of the criminal justice system in order, with a public defender office like Dallas' that would function in various courts, handling all levels of offenses?

Or is the incremental approach, taken by all large Texas jurisdictions, the right one? And if it is, which court should be the petri dish?

The clogged juvenile court system? Or should the office specialize in appellate cases, like the one in Bexar County? Or concentrate on mental illness, like the one in Travis County?

Proponents of a public defender office disagree.

The Rev. Robert Jefferson wants to see public defenders take on the whole shebang.

Jefferson, coordinator for the Houston Ministers Against Crime, said he envisions something similar to the full-scale Dallas model. And the office would maintain a relationship with churches to provide outreach to defendants who need it.

When I pointed out that Dallas didn't start out big — it took more than 20 years to grow from eight lawyers to 90 — Jefferson acknowledged that Harris County may have to begin with a smaller team, but that they should work in every court in which poor defendants are appointed lawyers.

Bob Spangenberg, whose Massachusetts consulting firm has been studying criminal justice systems for 20 years, said he'd start small, with young, eager lawyers. He suggested the county court level, where defendants facing less serious charges would have less at stake in a fledgling system.

"As those lawyers get experience, I would shift, gradually, to district court," he said.

That's a terrible idea, said Pat McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association.

"The county courts aren't where the bleeding is happening," he said. "Where people need help and where we need resources are in places where you're getting hammered for 90 years in a sentence."

And I want to turn back to a March 13 Falkenberg commentary, "An idea whose time has come?"

As he pleaded his case to a group of Houston defense lawyers the other night, state Sen. Rodney Ellis knew he wasn't necessarily among friends.

"If you're not with me," the Houston senator sternly told members of the Houston Lawyers' Association, "I hope you figure out a way to be quiet."

There were doubters. Skeptics. Foes. People understandably worried about how the senator's grand idea would affect their careers.

And:

Ellis might get less resistance from defense attorneys than he expects. A few do-gooders are selflessly, shockingly endorsing the idea. Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, the county's largest defense bar, recently took a poll and the group's attorneys came out 2-to-1 in support of some kind of public defender office.

McCann refused to tell me how many of the 370 members participated in the poll — jokingly saying "it's more than 10" — but the fact that the group's president and its most active members supported the concept sends a message.

"I think our bar has come to an understanding that the playing field is so uneven, in terms of funding and resources," says McCann.

In Harris County, indigent defendants are represented by private attorneys whom judges appoint through a rotation system or on a contract basis. Defense attorneys complain that some judges aren't fair in divvying out appointments and some refuse to pay full costs for investigators and experts. And there are no real performance standards.

McCann says Harris County has gotten used to providing indigent representation "on the cheap." While the DA's budget is around $50 million, McCann says the county spent $24 million last year on appointed counsel. "The DAs have 30 investigators on their staff, on top of all the police they've got working for them, and we've got nobody," McCann says. "Five investigators (in a public defender office) would be such a leveling thing, you can't imagine."

Ellis also expects to get opposition from judges.

"The judges are fighting it," he told the lawyer group. "And the judges have gotten a few people who look like me and a couple who speak Spanish and some decent white folks, too, to buy into it just so they can get a few little old crumbs."

The few judges I talked to took issue with that statement, saying they wouldn't likely oppose anything that improves representation for poor defendants.

"Maybe he knows something I don't know," said Kelly Smith, staff attorney for 22 district court judges. "I've never heard any of the judges make a statement against a public defender's office."

The county's head prosecutor didn't voice outright opposition, either.

"I don't have strong feelings either way," said Bert Graham, who became acting district attorney after Rosenthal resigned. But he added, "I would think whatever gives the best representation for a defendant without breaking the county's coffers is the way you ought to go."

A recent study by Texas A&M University's Public Policy Research Institute suggested that, over a three-year period, public defender offices consistently achieved a lower cost per case to dispose both felonies and misdemeanors.

Still, the start-up costs would be substantial, even if the office starts out as a smaller operation specializing in appeals or juvenile court cases. It will be up to the powers that be to decide how much justice is worth in Harris County.

The indigent defense index is here.

The Cost of Justice

That's the title of a Sunday editorial in the Amarillo Globe-News about the West Texas capital PD office.  LINK

Regionalism has its advantages, such as cost-sharing on the most expensive criminal cases - such as those involving capital murder charges.

Potter and Randall counties, therefore, have joined with nearly two dozen other West Texas counties in an effort to reduce the cost of trying defendants charged with the most serious criminal offense the state provides.

Both counties have been feeling the capital murder pinch for some time now, as they have seen the cost of providing defense counsel for indigent defendants rise.

The West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases office is funded by a $3 million grant from the Texas Taskforce for Indigent Defense.

That money will come back to the participating counties in the form of payment for legal services delivered to defend those charged with capital murder.

As Randall County Criminal District Attorney James Farren noted, "Finances play a role in whether or not we seek the death penalty."

Grant money administered by an umbrella agency would make it easier for the county to seek the death penalty.

Earlier coverage of the office is here.

More News of the West Texas Capital Public Defender

The Midland Reporter-Telegram has, "Defender offers help in case of officers' deaths," written by Bob Campbell.

The red hot question of who defends capital murder defendant Larry Neil White will be taken up again April 14 by Ector County commissioners, who may assign the case to the newly organized West Texas Regional Public Defenders for Capital Murder in Lubbock.

Indicted in the shooting deaths of three Odessa police officers last Sept. 8 and held without bond since then at Ector County Jail, the 59-year-old White has been helping prepare his defense with court-appointed Midland attorneys H.W. "Woody" Leverett Jr. and Ray Fivecoat.

And:

The executive director of the public defender's office, Jack Stoffregen, said Monday that his Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense-funded organization was first constituted only to handle cases that developed after Jan. 1.

However, he recently got authorization from his organization to represent people charged before that date.

Stoffregen appeared before Ector County commissioners Jan. 28 and monitored their Feb. 4 discussion about contracting to obtain his group's services free this year and for $33,000 next year, $27,000 in 2010, $41,000 in 2011 and $65,000 annually thereafter.

"Potter, Randall, Lubbock, Midland, Tom Green and Taylor counties have signed our interlocal agreement, along with a number of smaller counties in our 85-county region," said Stoffregen, who will take part in the 10 a.m. April 14 discussion. "The Michael 'Spider' Gonzales case has come back to Odessa and we could take that one, too."

He referred to Gonzales' conviction and death penalty in the deaths of 60-year-old Merced Aguirre and 73-year-old Mañuel Aguirre Sr., who were murdered and robbed on April 22, 1994.

Judge Bill McCoy of 358th District Court was ordered to retry the punishment phase of Gonzales' trial after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a psychologist who testified at his trial had shown racial bias in the trial of another defendant, according to the Odessa American.

Leverett and Fivecoat have indicated they will keep working on White's case unless relieved by Ector County 70th District Court Judge Denn Whalen, who appointed them.

Stoffregen was aware that Ector County District Attorney Bobby Bland had stated his intention to seek the death penalty for White, who is reportedly suffering from stomach cancer, and oppose a possible change of venue motion to move the proceedings to a major metropolitan area.

But just having helped negotiate a plea bargain in Hale County, he left open that course of action in Odessa, where the White case could cost the county $80,000-$150,000 if handled conventionally. White was indicted on Nov. 30.

Earlier coverage of the office is here.

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal Praises PD Office

"Public defenders office was created in short time," is the title of an editorial in today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.

The indigent defendants who will be defended by the office will be represented by attorneys familiar with the intricacies of capital murder cases and who will not be distracted by private practices.

Lubbock attorney Philip Wischkaemper raised a great point about a year ago when he asked Jim Bethke, the director of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, why Texas could not have a statewide public defenders office. The regional office will, of course, be on a smaller scale, but it is a good way to begin.

Texas Sens. Bob Duncan, R-Lubbock, and Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, helped secure the $2.7 million grant that enabled the office to be created.

The time frame from Mr. Wischkaemper's raising the question to the creation of the office was a remarkably short one for the workings of government. We are impressed with the fast way it came about.

The state will pay for the office for the first year, and the 85 counties will pay increasing shares of the cost after that. By 2012, the counties will be shouldering the entire cost.

The office should be good for the prosecutors, the defendants and the taxpayers of the 85 counties. Defending capital cases has been a big financial burden for counties, especially smaller ones. With each county paying a share of the cost of the office each year, they will avoid being hit by a big blow in a single fiscal year.

Earlier coverage is here.  The office is still searching for a Chief Public Defender to run the office.  The job posting is here.  This is a unique opportunity for an experienced attorney to build a model office from scratch.

More on Planned West Texas Capital PD

"Task force may improve murder defense for poor," is the headline in today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.

David Slayton thinks Texas has a bad reputation for sentencing a high number of indigent defendants to die, sometimes for questionable murders a competent attorney could have successfully defended.

And no one has felt the brunt of such criticism more than the small or rural counties, Slayton, director of court administration at Lubbock County, said Thursday.

"We really get a bad rap because a lot of people say we don't provide adequate legal representation," Slayton said. "But we hope this will change that perception."

Slayton was referring to the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Murder Cases office that is expected to open in Lubbock on Oct. 1.

Today, the state's Task Force on Indigent Defense in Austin is expected to create such an office, which would represent 85 counties in the region, from Dallam in the northwest corner of the Panhandle to Mills, a rural county about 100 miles northwest of Austin.

If approved, the multi-county office would operate on a five-year $2.7 million grant that Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, with the help of his colleagues Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, and Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, as well as Rep. Aaron Pena, D-Edinburg, secured in the recently concluded legislative session, said task force director Jim Bethke.

Slayton and Bethke say they are confident the 13-member task force will approve the proposal. It has the backing of Chairwoman Sharon Keller, who is the presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, making her the highest-ranking jurist in Texas. At a June 6 task force committee meeting, Keller voted in favor of it.

The plan is for the state to fund the office for the first year with about $650,000 and for the 85 counties to gradually assume their share of the cost, Bethke said. The counties are expected to be on their own after 2012.

Also, if approved, the West Texas public defender office would make sure suspects who are accused of capital murder, but do not have the money to hire their own attorneys, get qualified court-appointed attorneys, Bethke said.

"This is very important," Bethke said. The defendant gets the proper legal representation the Texas Constitution requires, and the counties save themselves a lot of money dealing with a costly capital murder trial.

AP has a report, "Vote set on regional public defender office for capital murders," via the Houston Chronicle.

Members of a task force charged with improving defense for indigents in Texas were expected to vote Friday on funding the state's first regional public defender's office for capital murder cases.    

The office would handle capital cases from 85 West Texas counties, many of which rarely deal with such trials. But when they do, trial costs can cripple their budgets.

The 13-member Task Force on Indigent Defense will vote on approving a $2.6 million grant over five years that would provide a chance for members to study the regional concept and possibly duplicate it elsewhere in the state.

"A lot of our programs are begun with the idea that they'll be suitable for other places in the state," said Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and chairwoman of the task force.

Texas, the nation's most active death penalty state, has often been criticized for not providing adequate defense for those facing lethal injection, including an instance in the 1980s where an attorney fell asleep during crucial stages of testimony.

The state on Wednesday executed its 400th inmate since 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume.

Philip Wischkaemper, the Lubbock attorney who late last year approached the task force about ways to improve death penalty representation in the region, said each of the five attorneys who would work in the office would have a limited case load.

So few attorneys, less than 20 in the 85-county region, handle capital cases because they take so much time — preparation and trial can last months — and the lawyers are unable to take on other cases.

"You can go broke doing it," he said. "The hope is that you'll be able to concentrate on that case right then and not have to sleep through trial to get your rest."

Yesterday's post, with a Texas Lawyer article on the proposed office, is here.

Plans Moving Forward for West Texas Capital PD

Mary Alice Robbins reports in Texas Lawyer that plans for a multi-county capital public defender office in West Texas are progressing.  LINK

Plans for the state's first public defender office that will handle only capital murder cases began with a single telephone call last year.

Concerned that so few lawyers were available to represent indigent defendants facing the possibility of a death sentence, Philip Wischkaemper of Lubbock, capital assistance attorney for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA), placed a call during the fall of 2006 to the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense in Austin.

James Bethke, the task force's executive director, says Wischkaemper asked him what could be done to improve death penalty representation in the Lubbock area. Wischkaemper's call came at a time when the task force had begun focusing on the need for more public defender offices in the state, Bethke says. The Texas Legislature created the task force when it enacted the Fair Defense Act of 2001 to improve representation for indigent defendants.

Encouraged by his talk with Bethke, Wischkaemper says he and David Slayton, Lubbock County's court administrator, "put our heads together" and wrote a grant application proposing the West Texas regional public defender for capital murder cases. On Aug 24, the task force will consider their proposal for a Lubbock-based public defender office that will serve 85 counties, from Dallam County at the top of the Panhandle to Mills County in Central Texas.

Bethke says he expects the task force to approve the requested five-year grant, which would provide $2.57 million in state funds to be matched by local funding. The task force's Grants and Reporting Committee recommended approval of the proposal on June 6, he says.

Slayton says the two regions requested a $650,685 grant for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. The public defender office will not begin accepting cases until Jan. 1, 2008, he says.

The proposal calls for state funding to decrease gradually over the five-year grant period, as the counties' share increases. Slayton says, participating counties will share the costs for the public defender office, based on a formula that takes into consideration their total population and the 10-year average of capital cases filed. The minimum a county will pay is $1,000, according to the proposed budget for the office.

If approved by the task force, the West Texas public defender office will be the first in the state to provide defense in capital murder cases to indigents in a multi-county region, Bethke says. The El Paso County Public Defender's Office represents capital murder defendants only within that county, he says.

And:

Attorney Robert Spangenberg, president of the Boston-based Spangenberg Group, a consulting company that provides technical assistance to local governments seeking to improve their indigent defense systems, says at least a dozen states have centralized public defender offices that handle capital cases. Having a public defender just to handle capital cases is a good idea, Spangenberg says, because it puts those cases in the hands of lawyers with specialized training in that area of the law.

"It makes sense for the defendant, who deserves a fair defense," Spangenberg says. "Ultimately, it's a cost-saver, because cases don't bounce back [from the appellate courts] quite so often."

The Task Force was created by the Texas Fair Defense Act (TxFDA) to implement the 2001 law.  The Task Force has been aggressive in working with counties to establish a variety of model offices, including Bexar County's Appellate PD and the recently opened Travis County Mental Health PD.  The Task Force had supported legislation that would have created a state capital habeas office in the 2007 legislative session, but lawmakers ran out of time before it could secure final approval.  Earlier coverage of indigent defense issues and the work of the Task Force is here.