Bill Text: NY S07481 | 2015-2016 | General Assembly | Introduced
Bill Title: Relates to requiring limits on the number of cases a public defender may be assigned in any given year.
Sponsorship: Partisan Bill (Democrat 8)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2016-05-04 - REFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT [S07481 Detail]
Download: New_York-2015-S07481-Introduced.html
STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ 7481 IN SENATE May 4, 2016 ___________ Introduced by Sen. HASSELL-THOMPSON -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Local Government AN ACT to amend the county law, the executive law and the state finance law, in relation to requiring limits on the number of cases a public defender may be assigned in any given year The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and declaration. In Gideon v. Wain- 2 wright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the United States Supreme Court held that 3 the 6th amendment right to counsel required states to assign defense 4 attorneys to defendants charged with serious offenses and who could not 5 afford counsel. This constitutional rule was subsequently extended to 6 require states to provide counsel to cases where a criminal conviction 7 could lead to imprisonment. In Gideon, the court held that the assign- 8 ment of counsel was essential to having a fair trial and was a constitu- 9 tional right of the accused which states could not violate. 10 In 2005, Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of the New York State Court of 11 Appeals, was appointed to head a state commission to review indigent 12 criminal defense in the state of New York. In 2006, The New York State 13 Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Representation concluded 14 that "{t}he indigent defense system in New York State is both severely 15 dysfunctional and structurally incapable of providing each poor defend- 16 ant with the effective legal representation that he or she is guaranteed 17 by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws 18 of the State of New York." The commission also affirmed that the exces- 19 sive number of cases assigned to public defenders caused irreparable 20 harm to representation. 21 In 2009, the New York state legislature passed and Governor Paterson 22 signed into law "case caps" for public defenders in New York City. 23 Through the Office of Court Administration, the legislature supplemented 24 NYC's indigent defense budget to effectuate a judiciary rule which 25 limited annual criminal defense attorney caseloads to 400 misdemeanors 26 or 150 felonies, with felonies counted as 2.66 misdemeanors in mixed 27 caseloads. EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [] is old law to be omitted. LBD14846-05-6S. 7481 2 1 In October 2014, Judge Kaye's warning of an on-going crisis came to 2 fruition as the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of 3 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP announced a historic settlement that overhauled 4 public defense in five New York counties and paved the way for statewide 5 reform of New York's broken public defense system. By entering into the 6 agreement, New York state took responsibility for providing extensive 7 responsibility for managing and funding indigent legal services. 8 In Hurrell-Harring v. New York, the plaintiffs charged that New York 9 state's decision to abdicate responsibility for public defense to its 10 counties resulted in a patchwork of often understaffed, poorly resourced 11 and largely dysfunctional public defense systems where defendants were 12 routinely arraigned without attorneys, urged to take plea bargains 13 regardless of the facts of their cases, burdened by excessively high 14 bail, and incarcerated for shockingly long periods for misdemeanors and 15 petty crimes. The suit contended that by failing to provide poor defend- 16 ants with adequate representation, New York state was violating the U.S. 17 Constitution, the state constitution and the laws of New York. 18 New York state settled on the eve of trial. Under the agreement, the 19 state adopted major reforms focusing on five New York counties - Ontar- 20 io, Onondaga (Syracuse), Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington - that were 21 chosen because their public defense systems are all different and cover 22 communities large and small, but are all emblems of New York's flawed 23 approach. The agreement, which will last seven and one-half years and is 24 subject to court approval, contains the following major provisions: 25 * Ensures that every poor criminal defendant will have a lawyer at the 26 first court appearance, where bail often is set and pleas taken; 27 * Requires New York to hire sufficient lawyers, investigators and 28 support staff to ensure that all poor criminal defendants have lawyers 29 with the time and support necessary to vigorously represent the defend- 30 ant; 31 * Provides for the setting of caseload standards that will substan- 32 tially limit the number of cases any lawyer can carry, thereby ensuring 33 that poor criminal defendants get a real defense; 34 * Requires New York to spend four million dollars over the next two 35 years to increase attorney communications with poor criminal defendants, 36 promote the use of investigators and experts, and improve the qualifica- 37 tions, training and supervision of lawyers representing indigent defend- 38 ants; 39 * Mandates the creation of eligibility standards for representation, 40 thus allowing more New Yorkers to access public defense services; 41 * Strengthens the Office of Indigent Legal Services as a state-level 42 oversight entity tasked with ensuring the constitutional provision of 43 public defense services and commits New York to provide the office with 44 the resources it needs to develop plans and implement and monitor 45 reforms mandated by the settlement; and 46 * Provides that the plaintiffs will receive detailed reports allowing 47 them to monitor compliance with the agreement and, if necessary, return 48 to court to enforce it. 49 In 2015, The Center for Court Innovation released a report titled An 50 Analysis of Mandatory Case Caps and Attorney Workloads, concluding that 51 mandatory cases caps dramatically improved the quality of representation 52 in Kings County. 53 The legislature finds and declares that in all criminal proceedings 54 against people unable to afford counsel, New York state is constitu- 55 tionally responsible for ensuring this fundamental right. However, 56 because of the long history of county/city funding and recognizing thatS. 7481 3 1 a complete state takeover of indigent criminal defense services is 2 financially unattainable at this moment in time, the legislature will 3 take steps to ensure that the right to effective counsel is protected 4 against caseloads that compromise this right. 5 The legislature finds and declares that the state is obligated to take 6 initiatives to improve the quality of indigent defense, ensure represen- 7 tation at arraignment, and implement caseload standards for providers of 8 indigent legal services and implementing statewide standards for deter- 9 mining eligibility. To advance these initiatives the state shall pay 10 counties the full amount necessary to cover the costs of caseloads which 11 exceed the formula provided for herein. 12 § 2. The county law is amended by adding a new section 722-g to read 13 as follows: 14 § 722-g. Restrictions on caseloads. The state shall reimburse any 15 county or city for individual caseloads annually exceeding three hundred 16 sixty-seven misdemeanors or one hundred thirty-eight felonies, with each 17 felony counting as two and sixty-six-hundredths misdemeanors in mixed 18 caseloads. Funds to pay for caseloads exceeding this formula shall be 19 reimbursed by the state to the county or city providing such services, 20 provided, however, that in the state fiscal year: 21 1. beginning April first, two thousand seventeen, the state shall 22 provide reimbursement for not less than twenty-five percent of such 23 expenses; 24 2. on April first, two thousand eighteen, the state shall provide 25 reimbursement for not less than fifty percent of the expenses; 26 3. on April first, two thousand nineteen, the state shall provide 27 reimbursement for not less than seventy-five percent of such expenses; 28 and 29 4. two thousand twenty and thereafter the state shall provide 30 reimbursement for the full amount of such expenses. 31 § 3. Paragraphs (l) and (m) of subdivision 3 of section 832 of the 32 executive law, as added by section 1 of part E of chapter 56 of the laws 33 of 2010, are amended and a new paragraph (n) is added to read as 34 follows: 35 (l) to present findings and make recommendations for consideration by 36 the indigent legal services board established pursuant to section eight 37 hundred thirty-three of this article; [and] 38 (m) to execute decisions of the indigent legal services board estab- 39 lished pursuant to section eight hundred thirty-three of this article, 40 including the distribution of funds[.]; and 41 (n) to adopt, promulgate, amend or rescind rules and regulations to 42 carry out the provisions of this section, including to (i) ensure the 43 presence of counsel at the first appearance of any eligible defendant 44 charged with a crime, (ii) establish caseload/workload regulations for 45 attorneys providing mandated representation that allow for meaningful 46 and effective assistance of counsel; assess statewide caseloads and 47 allocate monies to counties and cities consistent with section seven 48 hundred twenty-two-g of the county law, and (iii) improve the quality of 49 mandated representation. 50 § 4. Subdivision 3 of section 98-b of the state finance law is amended 51 by adding three new paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) to read as follows: 52 (e) The office of indigent legal services may expend a portion of the 53 funds available in such fund to provide for caseload relief in accord- 54 ance with section seven hundred twenty two-g of the county law, up to an 55 annual amount of sixty-seven million dollars.S. 7481 4 1 (f) For the purpose of caseload relief and pursuant to seven hundred 2 twenty-two-g of the county law, an annual amount of sixty-seven million 3 dollars shall be made available to every county, except the city of New 4 York, Suffolk county, Washington county, Ontario county, Onondaga coun- 5 ty, and Schuyler county from such fund for the provision of services 6 pursuant to section seven hundred twenty-two-g of the county law; 7 provided that every county, except the city of New York continue to 8 provide at minimum the aggregate amount of funding for public defense 9 services including, but not limited to, the amount of funding for 10 contractors of public defense services and individual defense attorneys, 11 that it provided, pursuant to article eighteen-B of the county law 12 during its two thousand sixteen--two thousand seventeen fiscal year. 13 (g) Funds to pay for caseloads exceeding this formula shall be reim- 14 bursed by the state to the county or city providing such services, 15 provided, however, that in the state fiscal year: 16 (i) beginning April first, two thousand seventeen, the state shall 17 provide reimbursement for not less than twenty-five percent of such 18 expenses; 19 (ii) on April first, two thousand eighteen, the state shall provide 20 reimbursement for not less than fifty percent of the expenses; 21 (iii) on April first, two thousand nineteen, the state shall provide 22 reimbursement for not less than seventy-five percent of such expenses; 23 and 24 (iv) in two thousand twenty and thereafter the state shall provide 25 reimbursement for the full amount of such expenses. 26 § 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
