Indigent defendants get better protections

The Nevada Supreme Court on Friday ordered major changes to the state's beleaguered public defender systems, including the unanimous adoption of rules intended to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes.

"With this order, the Supreme Court has drastically changed the way the justice system will deal with indigent defendants, although there is still work to be done," said Justice Michael Cherry, who chaired a commission that in December made recommendations to the full Supreme Court.

The far-reaching order, written by Justice Jim Hardesty, sets standards for determining who is entitled to a court-appointed attorney, declares that judges should never be involved in the selection of public defenders, and orders the creation of a statewide body to oversee indigent defense.

Perhaps most notably, the court said that indigent-defense lawyers have until April 1 to start following a strict set of procedures for every criminal and juvenile delinquency case they handle.

The Supreme Court, at least for now, held off on imposing caseload limits for public defenders.

David Carroll, director of research for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) and a member of Cherry's commission, praised the Supreme Court for taking unprecedented actions.

"This is the first instance in which a (state) Supreme Court has addressed so many crisis points in one order," Carroll said. "The court is speaking on behalf of people who don't have a voice to say that the current situation isn't what's envisioned by the Sixth Amendment," which guarantees defendants a right to competent counsel.

A Review-Journal series this past March about flaws in Clark County's public defender system called into question whether some indigent defendants were being deprived of that right.

The Supreme Court commission of jurists, court administrators, and equal-justice advocates was formed after the newspaper series. Clark County court administrators also took action to reform the county's system of assigning private attorneys to some indigent cases.

Chief Justice William Maupin called the discussions sparked by the newspaper series "the most important examination of the criminal justice system that has occurred in recent years."

In the only matter that divided the court, the justices voted 4-3 to delay implementation of caseload limits for public defenders. But all seven justices acknowledged caseload crises in Clark and Washoe counties and ordered studies to later help set a cap on cases.

Cherry, Maupin and Justice Nancy Saitta went a step further, calling for the implementation of caseload limits on July 1.

Maupin, on his last day as chief justice, wrote in a partial dissent to the order that caseload studies will only confirm the need to set caseload limits.

Currently, lawyers in Clark County's public defender's office have an average annual caseload of 364 felonies and gross misdemeanors. Washoe County's public defenders have 327 of these cases. The NLADA recommends a limit of 150 such cases. Cherry's commission proposed slightly higher caps.

The Supreme Court required the state's urban counties to complete caseload studies by July 15. Clark and Washoe counties have already agreed to pay for studies at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars each. The Supreme Court is set to meet in September to consider the studies and the possible adoption of caseload caps.

The performance standards, ordered in part out of concern that overburdened public defenders aren't able to spend sufficient time on cases, are likely to immediately affect the number of cases public defenders can take.

The Supreme Court in its order told public defenders in Clark and Washoe counties to inform county commissioners if they can no longer accept appointments to cases based on ethical concerns.

Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn and Assistant County Manager Jeff Wells said on Friday they'd meet next week to discuss this issue.

Wells said last month the county was looking at possibly hiring more lawyers for Kohn's office, despite the county's projected $42 million budget shortfall.

At the September hearing, the court will also consider a recommendation by Cherry's commission to beef up and better fund the state public defender's office to handle indigent cases in most of Nevada's rural counties.

It was the second time this week the Supreme Court issued new rules stemming from a Review-Journal series. On Monday, the court voted to restrict the ability of judges to seal civil court records from public view.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said the Supreme Court showed courage in making sweeping reforms to public defender systems.

"This is a major moment in the long-standing fight to fix Nevada's badly broken indigent defense system," he said.

The full Supreme Court order can be found at www.nvsupremecourt.us.