hot topic | PUBLIC DEFENDERS V. PROSECUTORS BUDGETS
© Images.com/Corbis (Steve Dininno)
JUSTICE IN
JEOPARDY
Budget Cuts Put State Public Defense Systems Under Stress
CAPITOL IDEAS
»
JULY/AUGUST 2010
18
by Jennifer Burnett
An $11 million shortfall in North Carolina’s Office of Indigent Defense budget could have a ripple effect throughout the state’s criminal justice system. Public defenders handle about 32 percent of indigent cases, and the Office of Indigent Defense Services contracts with private attorneys to handle the rest. But the 2011 fiscal year shortfall puts that legal service in jeopardy. Assistant Director Danielle Carmen said the shortfall will force the office to stop or delay paying appointed private attorneys by mid-May 2011. That could be bad news for
indigent defendants, according to Carmen. “You get what you pay for in this world— there is a corresponding impact on quality when you don’t pay people a fair wage,” she said. Because the state is required to provide that legal defense for people who can’t afford it, North Carolina could be open to legal liability if the program is underfunded. “Indigent defense is not an optional expense for state governments,” said Mary Schmid, senior counsel for the Criminal Justice Program at The Constitution Project. “While other state budget expenditures may
be completely discretionary, funding for indigent defense is simply not.” That’s because in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that defendants charged with crimes that carry a prison sentence are guaranteed a right to counsel, even if they cannot afford to hire an attorney. In the face of an economic recession and budget constraints, providing enough public defenders is getting harder for states. As states struggle to fund mandatory programs like education, unemployment insurance and Medicaid, budgeting for the criminal justice system can be a particularly thorny issue. That’s because underfunding could lead to legal battles over the constitutionality of budget cuts to things like the public defender system. That’s what happened in Montana. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state for not providing adequate public defense for impoverished people, the state legislature in 2005 established the public defender system. “Our agency is committed to meet our mission to provide quality legal services for those that qualify even in the face of fiscal constraints,” said Harry Freebourn, administrative director for Montana’s public defender system. Those fiscal constraints—an $800,000 shortfall in this budget cycle—are compounded by a 4 to 7 percent increase in the caseload for the state’s public defenders over the last two years.
Demand Up, Funding Down
Like many state programs, the public defender systems are suffering. In an economic downturn, more defendants qualify for services, while cash-strapped programs struggle to keep up with demand and still provide quality legal services.
