| Indigent defense bill passes Senate Lawmakers set standards for legal aid 04/11/2001 By Diane Jennings / The Dallas Morning News AUSTIN – The Senate, seeking to bolster legal representation for the poor in Texas, embraced a bill Tuesday to set statewide standards for court-appointed attorneys and provide nearly $20 million over the next two years to help counties pay for indigent defense.
|
The Senate-passed bill on court-appointed attorneys would:
Set minimum statewide standards for representing indigent defendants.
Provide up to $19.7 million in grants over the next two years to the state's 254 counties, which already spend about $90 million a year on trial counsel for the poor.
Allow counties to create a rotation of lawyers to serve as court-appointed attorneys or establish a public defender's office. Counties also could continue an appointment system, if it is approved by a presiding regional administrative judge.
Require that large counties appoint an attorney within one working day. Small counties would have three working days. Attorneys must make reasonable efforts to contact the client within 24 hours.
LEGAL COMPLAINTS
Backers of the bill say the current system often leaves poor defendants with unqualified or underpaid attorneys, chosen under a myriad of local rules. A study last year found that some defendants waited months before getting lawyers.
CRITICS SAY
Some judges worry that the legislation takes away their flexibility to deal with different cases. Some defense attorneys say that the bill still gives judges too much power over appointments.
WHAT'S AHEAD
The bill appears to have widespread support in the Legislature. The Senate approved it on a voice vote without objection, and a similar version already has passed a House committee.
Staff and wire reports
|
Supporters say the measure is designed to fix a patchwork system that has drawn national scrutiny because of botched cases by negligent, inexperienced and underpaid attorneys, picked under conflicting local rules. A study last year found that some defendants wait months before getting lawyers.
Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the bill's author, called it a "step in the right direction" but cautioned that it would not solve all the problems that have dogged the state's indigent defense system for decades.
"It is a beginning," he said during the debate Tuesday. "I don't want anyone to think this piece of legislation is in and of itself the finality."
The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote without dissent and sent it to the House, where supporters expect it to pass.
Among the key provisions: setting qualifications for court-appointed attorneys, deciding who is eligible for that representation and how quickly that person is assigned an attorney.
Some judges say they are worried that the proposal will remove their discretion in naming court-appointed attorneys. And some defense lawyers say it doesn't go far enough to ensure that qualified attorneys are chosen.
Mr. Ellis said the bill is written to deal with regional differences in a state as large and diverse as Texas. "It's not one size fits all," he said.
He also said more improvements may be needed. Approval of the bill "doesn't mean we can't come back in two years with refinements," he said.
The Dallas Morning News, in a recent series of reports, found that the lack of statewide standards has spawned a variety of approaches by judges in appointing attorneys for those unable to afford one in criminal cases. Critics say that too often, appointments are made on the basis of personal relationships or how quickly a lawyer moves a case, rather than the quality of work.
Currently, each criminal court judge, of which there are more than 800, decides when to appoint an attorney, who to appoint and how much to pay that person.
Under the bill, attorneys must be appointed within several days, depending on the size of the county. Also, judges may make appointments on a rotating basis from a qualified list, use a public defenders office when available or set up an alternative system with the approval of an administrative judge and the county commissioners court.
A statewide task force will be named, under the judicial branch, to collect data and suggest minimum attorney standards.
If a county meets the suggested standards, it may get a grant from the state to help pay for legal representation for the poor. The bill sets aside $19.7 million in grants over the next two years.
Mr. Ellis called that a "major down payment to contribute towards fairness in our system."
Texas is one of only four states that does not contribute state money for indigent trial defense, according to Mr. Ellis' office. South Dakota, Utah and Pennsylvania are the others.
That money will be in addition to the about $94 million now spent by counties on indigent defense.
Fellow senators applauded Mr. Ellis for championing the issue. Complaints about the state's indigent defense system came up last year during Gov. George W. Bush's run for president.
In 1999, Mr. Bush vetoed a bill by Mr. Ellis that would have required that an attorney be appointed within 20 days of an arrest. Some judges protested that the measure limited their appointment powers.
"I want to congratulate you for being a senator way ahead of your time on this issue," said Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. "My question is how far have we gone with your bill and how far do we need to go until you feel that indigent defense in Texas gives us a legal system to be proud of."
The bill's approach to improving the system is one of reward to counties that comply, rather than punishment, Mr. Ellis said.
And, he said, it may not be enough to satisfy everyone.
"There's still a likelihood that one of the national [legal rights] groups or some local groups may decide to take us to the federal courthouse and make the argument that we can do more," he said.
The biggest criticism is that some judges still will be allowed to devise their own appointment system – with the approval of an administrative judge and the county commissioners court. Defense attorneys say those appointed should be independent of judges hearing a case, but judges say they know who is best able to handle a particular case.
|
