Standards on public defenders issued
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
A divided Nevada Supreme Court has adopted standards to ensure that indigents charged with crimes get adequate legal counsel, and has set an April 1 deadline for implementing those standards.Sphere: Related ContentThe high court’s order, released Friday, also gives Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada’s largest, until next May to complete studies on caseloads that public defenders should carry.
The mandate was scheduled to take effect last April but was delayed pending a review of the impact on rural areas of the state. Justices plan a Jan. 6 hearing to consider that review.
The order for adequate counsel is in line with a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court requirement. Delays were sought because of the high cost of implementing the order — but justices also had been told that not complying with the requirement opens the state and its counties to possible lawsuits.
Justices Nancy Saitta and Michael Cherry agreed with the majority decision to adopt the performance standards, but said they should take effect Jan. 1. They also dissented because there wasn’t a requirement that defense lawyers advise clients of all the consequences of a guilty plea.
Saitta wrote that the consequences go beyond potential penalties in criminal cases and include other factors such as “forfeiture of assets, deportation and civil liabilities which may be affected by the acceptance of a plea offer.”
3 comments
The status of the indigent defense matter in Nevada is serious in that it is reported over the years that there may be thousands of cases since before 2000, where justice officials in Nevada have violated Constitutional Law and federal statutes by depriving indigents of adequate standards guaranteed by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments, tested and established by the US Supreme Court with Strickland v Washington, Brady and other cases over the years.
The standards in Nevada which have been debated and finally established by the Nevada Supreme Court in an order on January 4, 2008 have yet to be made effective beyond rhetoric, smoke and mirrors.
However, the standards set forth in the January 4th order essentially prescribes Constitutional standards already established by the US Supreme Court implying that those standards have not been met for many years by Nevada as required by federal law.
Now that the Nevada Supreme Court has allegedly arrived at a conclusion on the issue, nothing will go into effect until sometime next year.
In addition to the willful and knowing defiance of federal statutes until sometime when the standards are effective, what happens to all the cases which have been affected? What happens to the indigents who have been deprived of Constitutional equal protection and adequate counsel?
It appears that they are victims of the Nevada justice system as any victim is.
Public Corruption investigations because of these reasons are moving forward, because officials will not comply.
You are correct in your views. The State of Nevada is ‘their client’ which creates a conflict of interest in that the public defender and the prosecutor are working for the same employer often times to the disadvantage of the indigent.
Your communique is lengthy and will take some time to digest. Feel free to communicate securely direct to indigent@hush.ai.
‘Now that the Nevada Supreme Court has allegedly arrived at a conclusion on the issue, nothing will go into effect until sometime next year.’
I met with a contact defender last week who alleges that the policy is into effect now. However, no formal announcement has superseded the Supreme Court’s statement the standards won’t go into effect until 2009.
Meanwhile the contract defender could not confirm that public defenders are complying with the standards.
Nevertheless, there are issues such as plea coercion and violations with cases and complaints filed with federal agencies and in federal court with evidence the State of Nevada is covering up federal violations.
Corruption investigations continue.
Leave a Comment