Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports
The lawsuit that led to major upheaval in the state public defense system landed back in court on Friday, with defense attorneys saying the system is still unconstitutional.
Joe Cavanaugh, attorney for the plaintiffs in Tucker v Idaho, argued that while the state has made changes, there are still ongoing systemic failures in the public defense system.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for an injunction that would require the state to create a new plan for the public defense system, and have the court declare findings about possible inadequacies in the system.
Deputy Attorney General Joseph Aldridge asked the court to dismiss the request and the broader case, which first began in 2015. In motions to dismiss, the attorney general’s office called plaintiffs “unreasonable,” saying they “haven’t acknowledged the true extent of structural changes the state has made.”
The defense argues in its motion that plaintiffs seek a “hypothetical and unrealistic standard as opposed to what the Constitution actually requires.”
The U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment states all criminal defendants have the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one.
On Friday, Aldridge repeatedly pointed to the State Public Defense Act, which passed in 2023 and created major changes to funding for indigent defense.
CHANGES MADE
In 2022 and 2023, the Idaho Legislature passed bills that seriously changed the way the state handles public defense. But, those changes only came after the Idaho Supreme Court in 2021 unanimously found Idaho’s public defense system to be problematic following years of litigation in Tucker v Idaho.
The defense in the case noted that the Legislature’s bills do not address the inadequate space for defense attorneys to meet confidentially with their public defenders in some county jails.
Historically, the state has mandated that counties provide and pay for public defense. The most recent overhaul by the state moves the responsibility for public defense to the state, rather than the counties.
The legislature this year established the Office of the State Public Defender under the State Public Defense Act. That office, according to the law, is set up to ensure qualified defending attorneys, investigators and other staff, as well as appropriate facilities for providing indigent public defense. The state must employ a district public defender in each of the seven judicial districts.
In September, Gov. Brad Little announced the appointment of Eric Fredericksen as the new State Public Defender, and the office is set to begin providing indigent defense services on Oct. 1, 2024.
In the courtroom, Aldridge repeatedly pointed to the change as a positive one that will move Idaho’s public defense system in the right direction.
ARGUMENTS
In the declaration, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the plan the legislature put in place will not alleviate the caseload concerns for public defenders. Plaintiffs believe caseloads would still be too high to appropriately handle indigent cases.
“The estimated $48 million that I understand will be available for appropriation in the 2024 Legislative Session for indigent defense under the new public defense system is woefully inadequate to bring the State’s systemic deficiencies into constitutional compliance,” according to the declaration from Edward Monahan, filed by the plaintiffs as an expert report.
The Attorney General’s Office disagreed, saying the state’s investment is substantial.
Among other complaints, the plaintiffs argue there are “vast inequities” between prosecution, which will still be county funded, and public defense, which will now be state funded.
“Prosecution has a built-in institutional advantage due to its unfettered access to law enforcement, victim witness coordinators, and testing resources,” according to court documents filed in the case.
Cavanaugh argued that resources such as investigators and social workers are not available to most public defenders, and the Public Defense Act does nothing to address that issue.
Aldridge responded to the claim, saying social workers and investigators are not required under the U.S. Constitution.
Cavanaugh said about one-third of out-of-custody indigent defendants are not represented at initial appearances, which is another issue the Public Defense Act does not address.
Cavanaugh presented data for his argument that 50 percent of indigent defendants in Idaho will be represented by a public defender who has a felony caseload higher than what is recommended by the state Public Defense Commission.
Aldridge argued that caseload numbers vary based upon the attorney. An experienced defense attorney could handle more than the recommendation, while a young attorney may be overwhelmed by a lesser count.
Fourth Judicial District Judge Samuel Hoagland did not rule from the bench Friday but will issue a written decision later.