NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A10374
SPONSOR: Lentol TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the county law, the executive law and the state finance
law, in relation to requiring limits on the number of cases a public
defender may be assigned in any given year
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this bill is to establish "case caps" for indigent
defense services throughout the State of New York. Specifically, this
bill limits or otherwise caps annual criminal defense attorney caseloads
to 367 misdemeanors or 138 felonies, with felonies counted as 2.66 in
mixed caseloads. Please note that this bill is not applicable to New
York City, Ontario, Onondaga (Syracuse), Schuyler, Suffolk and Washing-
ton Counties, as these areas already have restrictions in the number of
cases a public defender may carry, such caps achieved either through
prior legislation or court settlement.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill provides for a Legislative finding and declara-
tion.
Section 2 of the bill: provides that the state shall reimburse counties
or cities for any caseloads that exceed 367 misdemeanors or 138 felo-
nies, with felonies counted as 2.66 in mixed caseloads. This section
creates a four year phase-in schedule so that 25% of excessive caseloads
are reimbursed in the first year, 50% of excessive caseloads are reim-
bursed in the second year; 75% reimbursement for excessive caseloads in
the second year; and 100% reimbursement thereafter.
Section 3 of the bill amends the executive law to commission the Office
of Indigent Legal Services with the power to adopt, promulgate, amend or
rescind rules and regulations regarding representation at arraignments,
caseloads/workloads and eligibility for assigned counsel outside New
York City. This section specifically authorizes the Office of Indigent
Legal Services to assess statewide caseloads and to expend monies to
eligible counties/cities where caseloads are excessive.
Section 4 of the bill amends the state finance law to specify that (1)
this bill provides monies only in situations where counties exceed the
caseload formula and states that the intent of this bill is to supple-
ment ongoing and locally funded indigent defense services; (2) This
section also provides for a four year incremental phase-in of supple-
mental monies to counties/cities; (3) This section authorizes the Office
of Indigent Legal Services to assess statewide caseloads outside New
York City and distribute the funds set aside for case caps consistent
with the formula enunciated in section 722-f of this bill.
JUSTIFICATION:
In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel required
States to assign defense attorneys to defendants charged with serious
offenses and who could not afford counsel. This constitutional holding
was subsequently extended to require States to provide counsel to cases
where criminal conviction could lead to imprisonment. In Gideon, the
Court held that the assignment of counsel was essential to a fair trial
and a constitutional right of the accused which States cannot abridge.
Judith Kaye, former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals
was appointed to head a commission to review indigent criminal defense
in the State of New York. In 2006, The New York State Commission on the
Future of Indigent Defense Representation concluded that "(t)he indigent
defense system in New York State is both severely dysfunctional and
structurally incapable of providing each poor defendant with the effec-
tive legal representation that he or she is guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of
New York." The Commission also affirmed that the excessive number of
cases assigned to public defenders has a direct impact on represen-
tation.
In 2009, the New York State Legislature passed and Governor Patterson
signed into law "case caps" for public defenders in New York City.
Through the Office of Court Administration, the Legislature supplemented
NYC's indigent defense budget to effectuate an Appellate Division Rule
which limited annual criminal defense attorney caseloads to 400 misde-
meanors or 150 felonies, with felonies counted as 2.66 misdemeanors in
mixed caseloads. In 2015, The Center for Court Innovation released a
report titled An Analysis of Mandatory Case Caps and Attorney Workloads,
concluding that mandatory cases caps substantially improved the quality
of representation in Kings County.
In October 2014, Judge Kaye's warning of an on-going crisis came to
fruition as the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP announced a historic settlement that overhauled
public defense in five New York counties and paved the way for statewide
reform of New York's broken public defense system. By entering into the
agreement, the state took responsibility for providing public defense
for the first time since the Supreme Court of the United States decided
Gideon v. Wainwright.
In Hurrell-Harring v. New York, the plaintiffs charged that New York
State's decision to abdicate responsibility for public defense to its
counties resulted in a patchwork of often understaffed, poorly resourced
and largely dysfunctional public defense systems where defendants were
routinely arraigned without attorneys, urged to take plea bargains
regardless of the facts of their cases, burdened by excessively high
bail, and incarcerated for shockingly long periods for misdemeanors and
petty crimes. The suit contended that by failing to provide poor defend-
ants with adequate representation, New York State was violating the U.S.
Constitution, the state constitution and the laws of New York.
New York settled on the eve of trial. Under the agreement, the state
adopted major reforms focusing on five New York counties Ontario, Onon-
daga (Syracuse), Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington - that were chosen
because their public defense systems are all different and cover commu-
nities large and small, but are all emblems of New York's flawed
approach. The agreement, which will last 7; years and is subject to
court approval, contains the following major provisions:
*Ensures that every poor criminal defendant will have a lawyer at the
first court appearance, where bail often is set and pleas taken;
*Requires New York to hire sufficient lawyers, investigators and support
staff to ensure that all poor criminal defendants have lawyers with the
time and support necessary to vigorously represent the defendant;
*Provides for the setting of caseload standards that will substantially
limit the number of cases any lawyer can carry, thereby ensuring that
poor criminal defendants get a real defense;
*Requires New York to spend $4 million over the next two years to
increase attorney communications with poor criminal defendants, promote
the use of investigators and experts, and improve the qualifications,
training and supervision of lawyers representing indigent defendants;
*Mandates the creation of eligibility standards for representation, thus
allowing more New Yorkers to access public defense services;
*Strengthens the Office of Indigent Legal Services as a state-level
oversight entity tasked with ensuring the constitutional provision of
public defense services and commits New York to provide the office with
the resources it needs to develop plans and implement and monitor
reforms mandated by the settlement; and
*Provides that the plaintiffs will receive detailed reports allowing
them to monitor compliance with the agreement and, if necessary, return
to court to enforce it.
In 2015, The Center for Court Innovation released a report titled An
Analysis of Mandatory Case Caps and Attorney Workloads, concluding that
mandatory cases caps dramatically improved the quality of representation
in Kings County.
Although the prime sponsor of this bill supports a complete state take-
over of indigent defense services, the financial restraints of the state
and the historic funding of legal services by counties and the city of
New York would make a complete state takeover unlikely. This bill
represents a bridge to the day when the State of New York takes direct
and complete responsibility for the provision of indigent criminal
defense services.
This bill provides mandate relief for counties or cities and resolves
some of the issues raised in the recent court settlement surrounding the
right to counsel,
EXISTING LAW:
Currently, counties and the City of New York are charged with providing
funding for indigent criminal defense programs. Limits on the number of
cases assigned to public defenders and supplemental state aid to pay for
caseloads in excess of a judicial formula exist in the City of New York,
and by court settlement in Suffolk County, Washington County, Ontario
County, Onondaga County, and Schuyler County. However, there are no
restrictions for caseloads, nor supplemental state aid to pay for case
caps in the rest of the State of New York.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Chapter 56; page 112; Part ZZ of the Laws of 2009
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
This bill sets aside 67 million dollars to be disbursed to every county
in the state except those in the City of New York, Ontario, Onondaga
(Syracuse), Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington Counties.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.
