Government
Apr. 15, 2016
ACLU case against state for underfunding Fresno public defenders can move forward
The ACLU's suit against the County of Fresno and the State of California over Fresno's failure to adequately fund its public defender system can move forward with the state as a defendant, a judge ruled.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
The ACLU's suit against the County of Fresno and the State of California alleging failure to adequately fund the county's public defender system can move forward with the state as a defendant, a judge ruled.
"The State cannot disclaim its constitutional responsibilities merely because it has delegated such responsibilities to its municipalities...Nor can the State evade its constitutional obligation by passing statutes," wrote Fresno County Superior Court Judge Mark W. Snauffer. Phillips v. California 15CECG02201 (Fresno Super. Ct., filed Jul. 14, 2015)
The complaint alleges that the state and the county have abdicated their constitutional and statutory responsibility to enforce and protect the right to representation by failing to provide indigent defendants with meaningful and effective assistance of counsel.
Fresno County began implementing budget cuts in 2008 that eventually led to the public defender's office staff being reduced by more than half, and the remaining lawyers were forced to take on three times their normal caseload. Attorneys sometimes saw 50-80 new clients per day, with no time to review files, and requests for continuance often lengthened the time defendants spent in pretrial detention.
ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Novella Coleman said that investigation and representation were at minimal levels, simply "ensuring that there's a warm body next to each person accused of a crime." The state doesn't provide adequate funding to the counties and doesn't ensure that counties fund public defender's offices in an adequate way, Coleman said.
Snauffer rejected the state's contention that the right to counsel does not prescribe any affirmative duty on the state government to provide or run an indigent defense system and its assertion that the Legislature's enactment of a system of indigent defense laws was adequate to ensure representation, saying, "If the state created an indigent defense system that is systematically flawed and underfunded... the state remains responsible."
"A lot of people in California assumed that because Fresno County pays for majority of the public defense system, that means the state has no legal responsibility to ensure this constitutional right is protected," Coleman said. "This ruling signifies the state cannot abdicate responsibility for ensuring that counties have adequate funding and oversight."
Aaron Jones, counsel for the California Department of Justice, could not be reached for comment.
Lj_williamson@dailyjournal.com
L.J. Williamson
lj_williamson@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com