Officials agree on need for changes
For the third time in less than a year, the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday held a public hearing to consider proposed changes to the state's public defender systems.
This time, however, there was more consensus than controversy, with public defenders, prosecutors, and county managers all essentially agreeing on the need to implement indigent defense reforms.
Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman said the discussions brought state courts a step closer to a "cultural sea change."
"But that's going to take time," she said.
In January, the Supreme Court ordered major reforms to ensure indigent defendants get adequate legal representation, the end result of what then-Chief Justice William Maupin called "the most important examination of the criminal justice system" in Nevada in recent years.
But a coalition of rural judges, county managers, and prosecutors objected to some of the changes, complaining that the justices didn't get enough input from all sides before issuing the order.
The Supreme Court responded in March by delaying implementation of the changes.
Most in dispute was the wording of performance standards for indigent-defense lawyers, and whether all the standards were requirements or mere guidelines. Rural court officials also questioned the feasibility of completely removing judges from the selection of court-appointed defenders.
An indigent defense commission formed last year by the court reconvened to iron out a compromise.
The commission was created after a Review-Journal series in March 2007 about flaws in Clark County's indigent defense system.
At Tuesday's public hearing, Forsman and Clark County Chief Deputy District Attorney Nancy Becker suggested revised language for the performance standards, agreeable to both defenders and prosecutors.
Forsman and Becker identified only five relatively minor issues still in dispute, including whether defendants should always be advised of their right to appeal a conviction.
Chief Justice Mark Gibbons praised the public defender and the prosecutor for their efforts.
"Thank you for meeting together to try to work these issues out and to locate areas of controversy," Gibbons said.
The performance standards were ordered in part out of concern that overburdened public defenders aren't able to spend sufficient time on cases.
Lawyers in Clark County's public defender's office have an average annual caseload of more than 350 felonies and gross misdemeanors. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association recommends a limit of 150 such cases.
As mandated by the Supreme Court, Clark and Washoe counties have commissioned caseload studies that will be used to determine whether caseload limits are needed.
Clark County has taken other steps towards fulfilling the Supreme Court's mandate, one of them launching the Office of Appointed Counsel to oversee a system for appointing private lawyers to many indigent cases.
The Supreme Court is now in a position to issue a revised order based on the proposals made at yesterday's hearing, which took place via teleconference in Carson City and Las Vegas.
But the indigent defense debate is far from over.
In September, the Supreme Court will hold another public hearing about issues facing rural counties.
Seventh Judicial District Court Judge Dan Papez said at Tuesday's hearing that the court will have to consider some thorny issues.
"It's becoming increasingly difficult for rural counties to fund indigent defense," Papez said. "It's a state responsibility, not a local responsibility."
Contact reporter Alan Maimon at amaimon@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0404.
