Senate Bill S2559

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S2559

SPONSOR: BAILEY
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the executive law, in relation to
caseload relief

 
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this bill is to establish "case caps" for indigent
defense services throughout the State of New York.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill provides for Caseload relief to develop and imple-
ment a written plan that establishes numerical caseload/workload stand-
ards for each provider of constitutionally mandated publicly funded
representation in criminal cases for people who are unable to afford
counsel, provided that annual individual numerical caseload/workload
standards may not exceed three hundred sixty-seven misdemeanors or one
hundred thirty-eight felonies, with each felony counting as two and
sixty-six hundredths misdemeanors in mixed caseloads.
              

 
JUSTIFICATION:

In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel required
States to assign defense attorneys to defendants charged with serious
offenses and who could not afford counsel. This constitutional holding
was subsequently extended to require States to provide counsel to cases
where criminal conviction could lead to imprisonment. In Gideon, the
Court held that the assignment of counsel was essential to a fair trial
and a constitutional right of the accused which States can not abridge.

Judith Kaye, former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals
was appointed to head a commission to review indigent criminal defense
in the State of New York. In 2006, The New York State Commission on the
Future of Indigent Defense Representation concluded that "(t)he indigent
defense system in New York State is both severely dysfunctional and
structurally incapable of providing each poor defendant with the effec-
tive legal representation that he or she is guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of
New York." The Commission also affirmed that the excessive number of
cases assigned to public defenders has a direct impact on represen-
tation.

In 2009, the New York State Legislature passed and Governor Patterson
signed into law "case caps" for public defenders in New York City.
Through the Office of Court Administration, the Legislature supplemented
NYC's indigent defense budget to effectuate an Appellate Division Rule
which limited annual criminal defense attorney caseloads to 400 misde-
meanors or 150 felonies, with felonies counted as 2.66 misdemeanors in
mixed caseloads. In 2015, The Center for Court Innovation released a
report titled An Analysis of Mandatory Case Caps and Attorney Workloads,
concluding that mandatory cases caps substantially improved the quality
of representation in Kings County.

In October 2014, Judge Kaye's warning of an on-going crisis came to
fruition as the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP announced a historic settlement that overhauled
public defense in five New York counties and paved the way for statewide
reform of New York's broken public defense system. By entering into the
agreement, the state took responsibility for providing public defense
for the first time since the Supreme Court of the United States decided
Gideon v. Wainwright.

In Hurrell-Harring v. New York, the plaintiffs charged that New York
State's decision to abdicate responsibility for public defense to its
counties resulted in a patchwork of often understaffed, poorly resourced
and largely dysfunctional public defense systems where defendants were
routinely arraigned without attorneys, urged to take plea bargains
regardless of the facts of their cases, burdened by excessively high
bail, and incarcerated for shockingly long periods for misdemeanors and
petty crimes. The suit contended that by failing to provide poor defend-
ants with adequate representation, New York State was violating the U.S.
Constitution, the state constitution and the laws of New York.

New York settled on the eve of trial. Under the agreement, the state
adopted major reforms focusing on five New York counties Ontario, Onon-
daga (Syracuse), Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington - that were chosen
because their public defense systems are all different and cover commu-
nities large and small, but are all emblems of New York's flawed
approach. The agreement, which will last 7 years, contained, among other
provisions, requirements for the setting of caseload standards that will
substantially limit the number of cases any lawyer can carry, thereby
ensuring that poor criminal defendants get a real defense.

In the 2017 state budget, New York finally implemented reforms to the
public defender system by strengthening the Office of Indigent Legal
Services and applying the lessons learned from Hurrell-Harring state-
wide. The budget instructed the Office of Indigent Legal Services to
devise plans to provide counsel at all arraignments, improve the train-
ing and supervision of public defenders, and set caseload caps. The
State will reimburse counties for the costs of implementing these plans,
subject to approval of the plans by the Division of the Budget.

Although the prime sponsor of this bill supports a complete state take-
over of indigent defense services, the financial restraints of the state
and the historic funding of legal services by counties and the city of
New York would make a complete state takeover unlikely.

This legislation will ensure that the Office of Indigent Legal Services
aggressively pursues caseload caps that will allow public defenders to
devote sufficient time and energy to each case. The standards must not
be more than 367 misdemeanors or 138 felonies per year. With the state
funding available to achieve these goals, local governments can truly
achieve transformational success in their public defense systems.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2015-16: S.7481/A.10374 (Lentol) - Referred to Local Government
2017-18: S.4032B - Referred to Local Government

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

To be determined.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.