You asked whether the legislature could eliminate the Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services or cut its budget.

SUMMARY

The legislature established the Division of Public Defender Services in 1975 to represent indigent defendants in any criminal case or delinquency matter. The constitution does not mandate that the division remain in existence. Thus, the legislature could eliminate the division. But because criminal defendants have a constitutional right to adequate representation, the legislature would have to establish an alternative system for providing legal representation for indigents.

No statute or court case requires the legislature to fund the division at a certain level. Thus, the legislature could reduce the amount of funding it appropriates to the division. But a reduction in funding could result in a legal challenge. Several years ago, a class action lawsuit was filed against the state alleging that severe understaffing, excessive caseloads, inadequate policies and procedures, and other system deficiencies in the public defender system violated constitutional and statutory requirements that indigents receive adequate representation in criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings. The lawsuit was withdrawn in 1999 because the plaintiffs were satisfied with increased funding and the implementation of guidelines including caseload goals, compensation rates, hiring and training guidelines, and performance evaluations.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL

In 1963, the United States Supreme Court held that an indigent criminal defendant in a state prosecution has a right to the assistance of counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335).

In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to a timely appeal of their criminal conviction (Gaines v. Manson, 194, Conn. 510). Several criminal defendants claimed that the lengthy delays in their appeals violated their constitutional equal protection and due process rights. The reason for the delays was the failure of the state to provide a sufficient number of appellate public defenders and prosecutors to insure that appeals of indigent criminal defendants were handled in a timely manner.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

In 1995, several indigent criminal defendants filed a class action lawsuit against the state (Rivera v. Rowland, No. CV 95-545629). They alleged that the public defenders office had overwhelming caseloads and inadequate resources that resulted in their being denied their right to a constitutionally adequate level of representation. The plaintiffs alleged that these conditions violated their rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and Article First, §§ 1, 8, 10, 12, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution. They also alleged a violation of 42 USCA § 1983, a federal civil rights statute, and CGS § 51-289 et. seq. , which imposed statutory duties on the public defenders system to represent indigent criminal defendants. We have enclosed a copy of the complaint filed in that lawsuit (Attachment A).

Withdrawal of the Lawsuit

The plaintiffs withdrew the lawsuit on August 3, 1999. The withdrawal motion indicated that the state agreed to pay plaintiffs counsel fees in the amount of $ 400,000.

The settlement notice to members of the plaintiff class indicated that after the lawsuit was filed, the state made numerous significant improvements to the public defenders system. The notice pointed to such improvements as:

1. additional funding that would result in the hiring of around 80 additional attorneys and support staff;

2. an increased compensation rate paid to special public defenders;

3. attorney caseload goals; and

4. a more comprehensive attorney-training program.

The notice specified that the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the lawsuit because of these and other changes in the public defender system. The motion to withdraw described in some detail the changes and improvements that induced the withdrawal. We have enclosed a copy (Attachment B).

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES

The following information was taken directly from the 2004 Annual Report of the Chief Public Defender.

The legislature established the Division of Public Defenders Services in 1974 (PA 317). It has three separate components: a commission, which is responsible for policy-making, appointments of all personnel, and compensation matters; an Office of Chief Public Defender, charged with statewide administration of the public defender system and provision of specialized legal representation; and, the individual public defender offices in the 13 judicial districts, the 20 geographical areas and the 13 Juvenile venues of the Superior Court, providing legal services throughout the State to indigent persons accused of crime.

The Public Defender Services Commission is the policy-making body and appointing authority for the division’s personnel. Its seven members are appointed for three-year terms by the governor, the chief justice and the legislative leaders (CGS § 51-289).

The commission (1) appoints attorneys and other division employees, (2) establishes the compensation for division employees, (3) approves expenditures, and (4) establishes policies and procedures relating the division’s operations. The commission appoints the chief public defender who is the division’s chief administrative officer. He supervises all the division’s personnel and operations, training of all attorneys and support staff, and preparation of all grant and budget requests for commission approval and submission to the governor.

The law authorizes the court to appoint public defenders to represent individuals in any criminal action, habeas corpus proceeding arising from a criminal matter, extradition proceeding, or delinquency matter. Representation is provided in adult and juvenile misdemeanor and felony cases as well as in appeals and other post-conviction matters (CGS § 51-296).

Including managerial and administrative staff, a total of 390 positions are currently authorized for the division. Of these, 367 are permanent full-time, seven are permanent part-time, and 16 are federally funded.

Specialized units of the Office of Chief Public Defender are responsible for the representation of clients in capital cases, appeals before the Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court, habeas corpus proceedings, matters before the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB), and juvenile post-conviction matters.

The Capital Defense & Trial Services Unit has a staff of six attorneys, three investigators, two mitigation specialists, a paralegal and a secretary who handle all death penalty cases assigned to the Division on a statewide basis. The seventeen-member Legal Services Unit, including 12 attorneys, handles all appeals of convictions following trial. The Habeas Corpus Unit’s nine attorneys (including three contractual special deputy assistant public defenders), two investigators, two paralegals, and three secretaries represent petitioners who challenge their convictions in post-conviction proceedings. The Psychiatric Defense Unit represents people acquitted by reason of insanity before the Psychiatric Security Review Board through the services of two attorneys, a social worker, and a secretary. These cases involve issues of hospital confinement, community release, and discharge from the jurisdiction of the Board.

The division also represents children charged with offenses before the juvenile matters sessions of the Superior Court. Permanent staff provides defense services to juveniles in Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, Middletown, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk, Rockville, Stamford, Torrington, Waterbury, Waterford, and Willimantic. Two attorneys in the division’s federally funded Juvenile Post-Conviction & Re-Entry Unit represent convicted juvenile clients who have been committed to the Department of Children and Families.

The commission also contracts with over 230 private attorneys to provide representation as special public defenders in adult and juvenile cases where conflicts of interest preclude representation by public defender staff. These attorneys handle a small percentage of the total caseload annually.

Caseloads

In 2003-04 the division’s judicial district (JD) offices were “appointed” to 2,532 cases. During this fiscal year public defender offices were appointed to 69 murder cases and 10 capital felony cases, in which the state is seeking the death penalty. Thirty of these murder and capital felony cases were assigned to special public defenders while private counsel entered appearances in eight. As a result, the public defender offices retained 41 murder and capital felony cases.

Geographical area (GA) offices were “appointed” to 60,310 new cases. The juvenile matters offices were “appointed” to over 7,600 new delinquency cases.

In 2003-04, the total public defender caseload in Connecticut was approximately 81,000. This total includes 8,241 cases that were assigned to special public defenders in conflict of interest cases.

Public Defender Share of Total Criminal Caseload

In 2003-04, the public defender share of the caseload was 81%, or 2,532 of the 3,133 new criminal cases received in the judicial districts; in the urban offices the public defender share was as high as 94%.

In the geographical area courts, 43% of the criminal cases received by the courts in 2003-04 were appointed to public defender offices. The public defender share of caseload was over the average in eight locations between 44% and 54%. In addition, public defenders handled nearly 9,700 motor vehicle offenses carrying possible jail terms.

Among the courts handling juvenile delinquency matters, public defenders offices received 46% of the courts’ new cases.

Special Public Defenders

Special public defenders are private attorneys hired by the commission to represent indigent defendants when the public defender office determines that there is a conflict of interest. In 2003-04 special public defenders were assigned to handle 8,241 cases for JD, GA, juvenile matters, appellate, and habeas offices combined. The majority of these cases were assigned under contracts entered into between the commission and members of the private bar.

Staffing

For FY 2003-04, the division’s staffing level remained at 362 full-time and 7 part-time authorized positions, with no new permanent positions added for the year. The division also received funding for 20 existing federally funded positions and four new grant funded positions, including 12 attorneys, eight social workers, two investigators and two secretaries. In total, the commission had 393 positions at the start of the fiscal year.

For 2004-05 the division received an additional five permanent full-time positions to pick up expiring federal grant positions, bringing its authorized permanent position count to 367 full-time and seven part-time positions. In addition, the commission received funding for 12 federally funded positions under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant and four positions, including one new social worker position, under the federal Byrne Grant Program. Four existing federally funded positions exhausted their eligibility for federal funding at the end of 2003-04 and were not picked up in the state budget. The result was a net reduction to the division’s workforce of three positions. At the start of the fiscal year, five permanent positions also remained vacant, subject to the availability of funding through savings during the year in order to fill them.

Expenditures

During 2003-04 expenditures for public defender services totaled $ 34,715,488 distributed as follows:

-Continued-

The commission’s 2003-04 expenditures of $ 35 million supported a permanent staff of 362 full time and seven part-time employees, 188 of whom were attorneys. Other staff consisted of administrative, social work, investigative, secretarial, and clerical personnel. In addition, the commission employed 12 attorneys and 12 support staff funded under four federal grants. For this expenditure a total caseload of approximately 89,300 cases was handled by the commission’s staff, at a cost per case of $ 389.

Appropriation 2004-05

During 2004-05, the commission’s appropriation is $ 35,479,335 distributed as follows:

Federal Grants

In 2003-04, $ 1,909,654 in continued and additional federal and state match funds was available to the division under the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program. This total was allocated as follows: $ 217,565 under the Team Case Replication grant; $ 20,000 for Death Penalty Defense Training under the Team Case Management Expansion grant; $ 1,012,337 under the Juvenile Accountability Public Defender Expansion grant, $ 263, 765 under the Juvenile Office Expansion and Post Dispositional/Reentry grant; and $ 395,987 to the Juvenile Office Expansion grant (Norwalk and Stamford Courts). These grants funded a total of 12 attorneys and 12 support staff.

Most of these grants were continued and expanded into 2004-05 with funding awarded as follows: $ 70,730 under the Team Case Management Expansion grant; $ 1,109,392 under the Juvenile Accountability Public Defender Expansion-grant, $ 254,980 under the Juvenile Office Expansion and Post Dispositional/Reentry grant; $ 20,000 for the Death Penalty Defense training grant; and $ 30,000 under the Statewide Training Conference grant.

The division obtained a total of $ 1,485,102 in grant funding for 2004-05. This will provide the division with the services of 10 attorneys and six support staff.

Client Reimbursement Program

All clients, except those in custody, must reimburse the system $ 25 toward the cost of their defense. A minimal, flat amount was set in order to simplify the collection process and to encourage clients to make some effort at payment.

A total of $ 97,819 was collected in 2003-04. Over the pat five years the average collected has been $ 89,000.

GC: ts