Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney

Are Rimfire Rifles Bannable Assault Weapons?

 

Rimfire Rifles | Rossi USA

In AGO 2023 No. 4 (October 2, 2023), the WA Attorney General (AGO) discussed whether Washington’s new statute resricting the manufacture, import, distribution, and sale of assault weapons applies to rim fire semiautomatic firearms.

In short, the answer is “It depends.” Rimfire rifles are not excluded from every definition of “assault weapon.”  A rimfire rifle that is semiautomatic is an “assault weapon” if it is either (1) a specific firearm listed in RCW 9.41.010(2)(a)(i), (2) has an overall length of less than 30 inches per RCW 9.41.010(2)(a)(ii), or (3) is a conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled.

BACKGROUND

In 2023, the legislature enacted SHB 1240, which amends RCW 9.41 to restrict the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, and offer of sale of “any assault weapon.”  Firearms, including rifles, are commonly designed for rim fire or center fire ammunition. A bullet with a rim fire cartridge is one for which “its primer, the explosive, is around the rim of the cartridge.” State v. Hammock, 154 Wn. App. 630, 633, 226 P.3d 154 (2010).

WHAT IS A “RIM FIRE RIFLE?”

A rimfire rifle is designed to use rim fire cartridges. In contrast, the primer of a center fire cartridge is at the center of the base. Consequently, center fire rifles are designed specifically to use center fire cartridges.

centerfire and rimfire cartridges

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The AGO looked to the statutory definition of “assault weapon” in RCW 9.41.010(2).  That definition is, in relevant part, as follows:

  1. Any of the following specific firearms [listed within this subsection] regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm [; or]
  2. A semiautomatic rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;
  3. A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or . . . converted . . . if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person; or
  4. A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more [specifically listed features]; [or]
  5.  A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;

In it’s opinion, the AGO said a rimfire firearm is one designed to use a particular type of cartridge. It explained that some rim fire semiautomatic rifles fall under the definition of “assault weapons.” That section defines “assault weapon” to include any of the 62 specific firearms listed in subsection (2)(a)(i), “some of which we understand come in rim fire models.”

“Thus, if any of the specific firearms listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) is designed for rimfire ammunition, or if a rim fire rifle has an overall length of less than 30 inches, it is an assault weapon and subject to the restriction in SHB 1240, section 3 (codified as RCW 9.41.390). Other categories of assault weapons defined in the bill, namely in subsections (4) and (5), specifically cover only “center fire” models, so those categories would not include rim fire models.” ~WA Attorney General

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

WA Attorney General Advises Pawn Shops on Handling Assault Rifles

How does a person buy a gun from a shop? | WFXL

Much confusion has arisen in the wake of WA State’s recent ban on assault rifles. Some thorny legal issues surrounding the changing role of pawn shops and their handling of assault rifles are especially interesting. For instance, if a pawnbroker receives an assault weapon, does the law permit the pawnbroker to return the firearm to the owner on repayment of the loan? And if the owner of a pawned assault weapon defaults on the loan, does the law allow the pawnbroker to sell the firearm?

In AGO 2023 No. 5 (October 5, 2023), the WA Attorney General answered these questions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 SHB 1240 was signed into law by the governor on April 25, 2023, and became effective immediately. Its stated purpose is to limit the prospective sale of assault weapons, while allowing existing legal owners to retain the assault weapons they currently own. To that end, section 3 of the bill enacts the following prohibition: “No person in this state may manufacture, import, distribute, sell, or offer for sale any assault weapon, except as authorized in this section.” A violation of section 3 is a gross misdemeanor.

Pawnbrokers engage in the business of loaning money on the security of pledges of personal property. The term of a pawnbroker loan is ninety days. The customer may redeem their pledged property at any time during the loan period upon repayment of the loan principal, interest, and associated fees. After the term of the loan, unredeemed property on unpaid loans becomes the property of the pawnbroker.

1. If a pawnbroker receives an assault weapon, does the law permit the pawnbroker to return the firearm to the owner on repayment of the loan?

Yes. The Attorney General opined that the legislature’s express intent in enacting SHB 1240 was to allow existing legal owners to retain the assault weapons they currently own. Within the term of a pawnbroker loan, the pledgor retains ownership of the pledged article and retains the right to redeem the pledge at any time.

“The legislature’s stated intent in enacting SHB 1240 confirms this reading. The stated purpose of SHB 1240 is ‘to limit the prospective sale of assault weapons, while allowing existing legal owners to retain the assault weapons they currently own.’ Laws of 2023, ch. 162, § 1. This enacted statement is included within the plain reading of the statute. See G-P Gypsum Corp., 169 Wn.2d at 310. As RCW 19.60.061 makes clear, the pledgor remains the ‘existing legal owner’ of the assault weapon during the loan period, and thus, consistent with the legislature’s explicit intent, remains entitled to retain the assault weapons they currently own.” ~WA Attorney General.

In other words, a pawnbroker who receives an assault weapon as security for a loan may lawfully return the weapon upon repayment of the loan. Returning the assault rifle to the owner  is not an unlawful “delivery.” It is merely a return of property of which the pawnbroker was a bailee.

2. If the owner of a pawned assault weapon defaults on the loan, does the law allow the pawnbroker to sell the firearm?

No. Pawnbrokers are now prohibited from selling assault weapons they receive as security to a loan. Instead, pawnbrokers may sell assault weapons to the armed forces or to a state law enforcement agency for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Local Veteran Defense Attorney on Whatcom County’s Need for a New Jail

Haunting photos capture crumbling remains and execution chamber at prison  used to film The Green Mile - World News - Mirror Online

Excellent editorial by Stark Follis, the Director of the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office, on why Whatcom County needs a new jail.

“I have worked as a criminal defense attorney in Northwest Washington for 37 years. I do not support mass incarceration nor do I support an ever-increasing criminal justice burden to the county as numbers continue to increase. I do support a new jail and I trust the decision makers in place to build a jail that addresses the foregoing concerns, taking positive steps to address the root causes of criminal behavior and make a facility that treats those incarcerated in a humane manner.” ~Stark Follis, the Director of the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office

For starters, Whatcom County voters will be asked to approve funding for the planning and construction of a new jail.  This will appear on the General Election Ballot in November. Twice before, voters have rejected the funding for a new jail, but never has the plan had the widespread support of cities and towns, including the elected officials representing them.

Follis says that opponents of new jail construction are generally concerned with playing into the idea of supporting mass incarceration. “U.S. incarceration rates are higher than anywhere in the world and the state of Washington and Whatcom County are no exception.”

In his editorial, Follis laments that many of those that we have incarcerated, and continue to incarcerate, do not belong there. Low-level offenses and crimes of poverty and homelessness are symptomatic of our society’s ills. However, there are people within the jail who represent a danger to the community. They must be either treated or helped or must be segregated from society. The fact is that only a small number will be segregated from society for lengthy periods and mostly on only the most serious of offenses. Most will be released and we need a jail facility that will allow us to address particular issues to lessen the safety concern upon release.

The difficulty comes when those presenting a substantial threat to community safety and security do so because of behavioral health issues. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of people arrested with severe mental health problems. Drug use and addiction is more rampant today than ever. Scores of people in our community are unhoused and living a lifestyle that could not have been imagined to us years ago, but is now commonplace.

“Insufficient resources are available to those with mental health disorders. Those deemed not competent to stand trial face long waits for treatment at state hospitals and many of those face a lockdown existence in the current jail that allows them out of a cell for one hour a day.” ~Stark Follis, the Director of the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office

Follis also says that deprivation of human contact has long been recognized as inhumane, and in some cases has been found to be unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The current jail leaves jail administrators with few options around this practice based on the configuration of the jail and staffing shortages that result.

Further, there are no facilities within the current jail to treat those with mental health disorders. There is a jail medical facility that is small and inadequate for sufficient treatment including counseling, medication or even diagnosis. When those come into the jail with mental health disorders, it is common for them to deteriorate while in there — the exact opposite of what we need to try to accomplish to make society safe.

There are no facilities for treatment of those with substance abuse disorders. While the current jail is mandated to provide medical assistance to those withdrawing from addiction, there is no ability to provide ongoing counseling or treatment such as opiate blockers or even things as basic as NA/AA programs.

“In general, conditions in the jail are poor for those who find themselves incarcerated. We need a jail, but we need a jail that does not just punish people by throwing away the key. We do not need a jail that treats people in a cruel and unusual manner. We need a jail that will triage those that come in and will divert them to the services they need.” ~Stark Follis, the Director of the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office

My opinion? This was an excellent and informative critique by Starck Follis. I agree with every word he said.  Clearly, the Whatcom County Jail is no place to wait out a pending criminal charge. Please review my Legal Guide “Making Bail” and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are incarcerated. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Washington State Prison System Sued for Using Unreliable Drug Tests On Prison Mail

Ventura County jail mailroom workers keep drugs and other items at bay

The WA Department of Corrections (DOC) is facing a lawsuit over its use of inaccurate drug field tests to throw incarcerated people in solitary confinement.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by Columbia Legal Services alleges that the DOC uses unreliable field kits to test mail for drugs. From there, the DOC uses the unverified results to put inmates in solitary confinement, move them to higher security prisons, and strip them of visitation rights and other privileges. This violates inmates’ Due Process rights and protections against cruel punishment under the state constitution, the suit argues.

According to the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs spent four months in solitary confinement after greeting cards shipped directly to him from a card company tested positive for drugs. The results were later invalidated by a lab. Another plaintiff, Gregory Hyde, was kept in solitary confinement—meaning he was in a cell for 23 hours a day—for nearly five months. This happened because some books of crossword and sudoku puzzles that his father mailed him tested positive for “spice,” a popular drug in prisons.

“I think DOC is using its power to punish people who can’t fight back . . . My elderly father just wanted to send me some puzzle books. Now they’re saying he’s a drug dealer. Now my father is too far away to see because I got transferred to a different facility. My father is impoverished and on a fixed income. I think it’s an abuse of power.” ~Gregory Hyde, DOC inmate, in a press release.

The lawsuit comes roughly two years after a Massachusetts judge ordered that state prison system to stop using similar field tests, finding that they were “highly unreliable” and “only marginally better than a coin-flip.” That suit followed claims by over a dozen Massachusetts attorneys who said they were falsely accused of sending drugs to their incarcerated clients.

Reason reported in 2021 on how these cheap field tests, which use instant color reactions to indicate the presence of compounds found in certain drugs, are used extensively in prison systems across the country to punish inmates, despite clear warnings from the manufacturers that the results should be confirmed by outside labs.

The problem is that the compounds these kits test for are not exclusive to illicit drugs and are in fact found in dozens of legal substances. Police also use these tests during traffic stops, and over the years, officers have arrested and jailed innocent people after drug field kits returned presumptive positive results when tested on bird poopdonut glazecotton candy, and sand from inside a stress ball. A 2017 investigation by a Georgia news station found that one brand of test kit produced 145 false positives in the state in one year.

In criminal cases, the results of drug field tests are always verified by an outside lab. However, incarcerated people have far fewer rights in administrative disciplinary hearings, and they don’t have the right to demand that “presumptive positive” tests be sent out for confirmation.

The lawsuit says the DOC agreed to change its policies after receiving Columbia Legal Service’s threat of litigation. However, Columbia Legal Services says the changes weren’t adequate to protect incarcerated people’s rights.

“DOC’s repeated and prolonged use of solitary confinement before and after any infraction hearings is inhumane . . . Prolonged solitary confinement is internationally recognized as a form of torture. DOC must be required to stop its use of these cheap tests to unfairly punish people, especially with its barbaric use of solitary confinement.” ~Alison Bilow, an attorney for Columbia Legal Services

Clearly, prison is a terrible outcome to be avoided at all costs. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

New Study Recommends Police Pursuits be Limited to Violent Crimes

New study recommends police pursuits be limited to violent crimes | KOMO

According to a new study, police pursuits should be rare and limited to violent criminals who pose an imminent threat.

The research by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a think tank on law enforcement standards, references Washington state and the pursuit law changes adopted here as part of its research. In its report, “Vehicular Pursuits: A Guide for Law Enforcement Executives on Managing the Associated Risks,” PERF recommends that a pursuit should only be initiated under two conditions: (1) If a violent crime has already occurred and (2) if there is an immediate risk that the suspect will commit another violent crime.

According to PERF, pursuits pose dangers to officers, unsuspecting bystanders, suspects, and the community at large. The latest national data on police vehicle pursuits revealed that for every 100 pursuits, there were two severe injuries and 10 minor injuries. Of these serious injuries, suspects accounted for 76%, non-involved persons accounted for 21%, and law enforcement officers made up 3%.

The report showed statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, revealing that in 2020, the number of fatal crashes related to police pursuits reached a peak of 455. This was the highest number since 2007 when the fatalities stood at 372. Several police departments have reported a significant increase in the number of individuals attempting to evade law enforcement during traffic stops.

The report is broken up into six sections:

  • Agency philosophy and policy standards
  • Initiating and discontinuing the pursuit – the role of a supervisor
  • Pursuit interventions/alternatives and technology for managing pursuits
  • Post-pursuit reporting
  • Vehicle pursuit training
  • Community engagement.

Under Washington law, police are allowed to chase suspects involved in violent offenses, sex offenses, vehicular assaults and domestic violence assaults. There is also a provision that would require officers engaging in pursuit to have emergency vehicle operator training and be certified in at least one pursuit intervention option, such as spike strips.

The study recommends that chasing a suspect should only be allowed if they are both a violent criminal and pose an imminent threat. Washington allows pursuits in some non-violent situations, such as DUI or to catch an escapee.

The PERF study also advises that pursuits should not be a routine part of law enforcement work. Researchers said the safety of fleeing suspects, their passengers, pursuing officers and community members is too important to risk on a regular basis.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

AI Facial Recognition Tech Leads to Mistaken Identity Arrests

Facial recognition fails on race, government study says - BBC News

Interesting article by Sudhin Thanawala and the Associated Press describes lawsuits filed on the misuse of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. The lawsuits come as Facial Recognition Technology and its potential risks are under scrutiny. Experts warn about Artificial Intelligence (AI’s) tendency toward errors and bias.

Numerous black plaintiffs claim they were misidentified by facial recognition technology and then wrongly arrested. Three of those lawsuits, including one by a woman who was eight months pregnant and accused of a carjacking, are against Detroit police.

The lawsuits accuse law enforcement of false arrest, malicious prosecution and negligence. They also allege Detroit police engaged “in a pattern of racial discrimination of (Woodruff) and other Black citizens by using facial recognition technology practices proven to misidentify Black citizens at a higher rate than others in violation of the equal protection guaranteed by” Michigan’s 1976 civil rights act.

WHAT IS FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY?

The technology allows law enforcement agencies to feed images from video surveillance into software that can search government databases or social media for a possible match. Critics say it results in a higher rate of misidentification of people of color than of white people. Supporters say it has been vital in catching drug dealers, solving killings and missing persons cases and identifying and rescuing human trafficking victims. They also contend the vast majority of images that are scoured are criminal mugshots, not driver’s license photos or random pictures of individuals.

Still, some states and cities have limited its use.

“The use of this technology by law enforcement, even if standards and protocols are in place, has grave civil liberty and privacy concerns . . . And that’s to say nothing about the reliability of the technology itself.” ~Sam Starks, a senior attorney with The Cochran Firm in Atlanta.

FALSE ARRESTS BASED ON INACCURATE IDENTIFICATIONS FROM AI CAN SUPPORT A DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY

My opinion? AI should be abandoned if the technology incorrectly identifies perpetrators. As a matter of law, the prosecution must prove the identity of the perpetrator of an alleged crime.

According to the jury instructions on Mistaken Identity, in determining the weight to be given to eyewitness identification testimony, jurors may consider other factors that bear on the accuracy of the identification. These may include:

  • The witness’s capacity for observation, recall and identification;
  • The opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act and the perpetrator of that act;
  • The emotional state of the witness at the time of the observation;
  • The witness’s ability, following the observation, to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The witness’s familiarity or lack of familiarity with people of the perceived race or ethnicity of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The period of time between the alleged criminal act and the witness’s identification;
  • The extent to which any outside influences or circumstances may have affected the witness’s impressions or recollection; and
  • Any other factor relevant to this question.

But what happens when the “eyewitness identifier” is, in fact, AI technology?

At trial, the defense should procure an expert witness who’d testify on the inaccuracies of AI technology. That’s an appropriate route to challenging the credibility of this “witness.”

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving AI. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Let’s Not Forget – There’s Actually Less Crime

What the public thinks – and data shows – about violent crime in U.S. | Pew Research Center

Excellent article in USA Today from Adam Gelb, the President and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice. According to crime and justice trends, there is positive news in the realm of crime and punishment.

VIOLENT CRIME

Even after three years of increases, the rate of reported violent crime in America is half what it was at its peak in 1991, while burglaries and other property crimes are 63% lower than its peak in 1980. And the most recent data shows murder and other trend lines bending back down.

ARRESTS & INCARCERATIONS

In the mid-1990s, police arrested more than 15 million people a year. By 2019, arrests had dropped by a third, to about 10 million, and they fell even further during the pandemic. The U.S. incarceration rate remains among the highest in the world, but it, too, has declined, falling from its peak of more than 1 in every 100 adults in 2008 to 1 in 147 in 2021, a decline of a third. That translates to about a half million fewer people behind bars on any given day.

RECIDIVISM

Recidivism is the rate at which people on parole are sent back to prison for committing new crimes or violating the rules of their release. According to Gelb, that has dropped as well. The three-year prison return rate – the most commonly used measure – fell from 50% among people released from state prisons in 2005 to 39% among those released in 2012. And in juvenile justice, the number of youth removed from their homes for delinquency has plummeted by two-thirds, from more than 100,000 in 2000 to fewer than 37,000 in 2019.

RACIAL DISPARITIES

While troubling racial disparities in imprisonment persist, we’ve also seen some progress here. From 2000 to 2020, the disparity between Black and white adults in state prisons fell by 40%, from 8-to-1 to 5-to-1, and for drug offenses, it shrank by 75%. Black women remain nearly twice as likely to be held in prison as white women. However, they were over five times more likely at the turn of the century.

Taken together, the overall “footprint” of the justice system has shrunk substantially. In 2008, The Pew Charitable Trusts found that a whopping 1 out of every 31 American adults was in prison or jail or on probation or parole. According to new data from the Justice Department, that rate of correctional control had dropped to 1 in 48 by the end of 2021, a decline of a third.

Crime remains a serious and urgent concern. During the early days of the pandemic, as protests against police killings spread and gun sales spiked, homicide and other violent crimes rose. But as troubling as these recent increases are, it’s important to recognize that they occurred in the wake of significant improvements in safety.

STUDY THE GOOD NEWS AS WELL AS THE BAD ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

Gelb emphasizes that despite positive gains, the shrinking criminal justice footprint is rarely acknowledged or discussed. This leaves everyday Americans to conclude that nothing is improving.

“That’s understandable, but we ignore progress at our peril,” writes Gelb. Furthermore, pessimism leads to defeatist attitudes and clouds sober analysis of what is and isn’t working. It chases away elected officials, candidates and philanthropists who don’t want to hitch their wagons to perpetually losing causes. It burns out talented leaders and staff. And it feeds a cycle of cynicism that sows deeper and deeper distrust of the criminal justice system, of American institutions and of democracy itself.

“It’s crucial to face our ugly history. Justice demands that we identify and fix our problems. But to accelerate America’s march toward a safer and more just society, we also must recognize, examine and learn from what’s gone right.” ~Adam Gelb, the President and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice. 

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

It’s Time To Apply New & Better Standards for Public Defense Workloads

The State Of Public Defenders Workload: Can AI Fix The People Gap?

With publication of a milestone national study 50 years in the making, the Council on Public Defense (CPD) is immediately beginning to examine how the new research about public-defense caseloads should be applied to Washington’s criminal courts.

“The accused are entitled to an effective advocate and that means a lawyer with time and resources to help. This study underlines what public defenders are experiencing every day, which is a staggering increase in the number and complexity of cases, especially compared to 50 years ago when the national standards were first written. The CPD understands that overworked public defenders impact legal outcomes for the accused and the fairness of the criminal legal system. The CPD has already begun the work of adapting this study to Washington law.” ~Jason Schwarz, Esq., CPD Chair and Director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense.

The CPD is a committee of the Washington State Bar Association, established in 2004 to address challenges that impact the state’s public defense system. The Washington Supreme Court tasks the state bar, through the CPD, to make recommendations regarding public defense caseloads and performance guidelines. The Court puts those recommendations into practice in courts via Superior Court Criminal Rule (CrR) 3.1 (Standards for Indigent Defense).

Since its inception, the CPD has regularly recommended updates to CrR 3.1, but the underlying standards are based on a 1973 study from the National Advisory Commission. The new study is the product of a partnership among the Rand Corporation, the National Center for State Courts, and the American Bar Association; it was released on Sept. 12 with comprehensive research that suggests public defenders are working far too many cases and their cases continue to grow more complex. These standards are not binding on any jurisdiction but act as a model.

“The state bar is uniquely situated to convene stakeholders in the legal community to make sure our court rules support actual justice. The Council on Public Defense exemplifies that work and oversees a process that is critically important: Fleshing out standards that will support the state’s constitutional obligation to provide ‘adequate’ legal counsel to anyone facing a criminal charge. What we are talking about here is how long a person might have to wait to get their day in court, and the quality of their defense. Those are among the foundations of criminal justice.” ~Washington State Bar Association President Hunter Abell.

The CPD expects to shepherd the new model standards to present a recommendation for rule changes to the Washington Supreme Court for consideration and adoption. The CPD aims to have draft recommendations by the end of the year.

CPD has been raising the flag about excessive defender workloads for years, and the new study comes amid a flurry of state and national events highlighting the problem:

My opinion? This is excellent and refreshing news. Public defenders have been eagerly waiting for these new standards—for more than 50 years, in fact. The CPD is eager to get to work to bring them to bear in Washington courts. While public defenders are some of the most committed, compassionate, and passionate lawyers, excessive workloads have resulted in burnout and the loss of great advocates and colleagues. Applying this study to the Washington legal landscape will assist us in assuring that assigned counsel have the time to advocate for accused.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

National Public Defense Workload Study

With no public defender system, Maine's poor are often represented by private attorneys with criminal backgrounds

In a first of its kind report from the RAND Corporation, the National Public Defense Workload Study says that public defender caseloads are too heavy and unmanageable.

Also, today’s standards for the number of cases that public defenders handle are no longer working, with these caseloads leading to an exodus from the profession. The study recommends new standards be adopted to address the issue and protect the public’s fundamental right to effective legal representation in criminal court.

Researchers conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of 17 state-level public defense workload studies conducted between 2005 and 2022. The research then employed the Delphi method to facilitate the efforts of a panel of 33 expert criminal defense attorneys from across the country. The data quantified the average amount of time needed to provide constitutionally appropriate representation for adult criminal cases.

KEY FINDINGS

  • High-severity felony cases required the most time, on average: cases with a possible sentence of life without parole, 286 hours; murder cases, 248 hours; sex crimes cases, 167 hours; and other high-severity felony cases, 99 hours.
  • Mid- and low-severity felony cases required an average of 57 and 35 hours, respectively.
  • High- and low-severity cases for driving under the influence required 33 and 19 hours, respectively.
  • High- and low-severity misdemeanor cases required an average of 22.3 and 13.8 hours, respectively.
  • Probation or parole violation cases required an average of 13.5 hours.

EXISTING NATIONAL PUBLIC DEFENSE WORKLOAD STANDARDS ARE OUTDATED, NOT EMPIRICALLY BASED, AND INADEQUATE.

  • The 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (NAC) standards fail to differentiate among types of felonies, giving equal weight to a burglary, a sexual assault, and a homicide.
  • Using the 1973 NAC standards creates a risk of excessive workloads.

NEW NATIONAL WORKLOAD STANDARDS BETTER REFLECT MODERN CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE AND PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

  • The new standards reflect expert attorneys’ experiences with current criminal defense practice, including digital discovery and forensic evidence, as well as the expanded scope of a criminal defense lawyer’s obligations, including advising clients on collateral consequences.
  • The new workload standards can be used to assist public defense agencies, policymakers, and other stakeholders in evaluating defender workloads.

My opinion? Excellent study by the Rand Corporation. Many of my colleagues are highly-trained and extremely capable public defenders. However, public defense attorneys with excessive caseloads cannot simply give appropriate time and attention to each client.

Excessive caseloads violate ethics rules and inevitably cause harm. Overburdened attorneys are forced to choose cases or activities to focus on, such that many cases are resolved without appropriate diligence. A justice system burdened by triage risks unreliability, denying all people who rely on it — victims, witnesses, defendants, and their families and communities — efficient, equal, and accurate justice.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Public Safety Beyond Extreme Sentencing

Long prison sentences are cruel and ineffective: here's the proof - The  Boston Globe

A policy brief from the Sentencing Project explores five social interventions that can improve public safety in the United States without increasing the reliance on mass incarceration.

According to the report, America’s criminal legal system has produced excessive levels of punishment and a diversion of resources from investments that would strengthen the capacity of communities to address the circumstances that contribute to crime.

After 50 years of mass incarceration, the United States faces a reckoning. While crime is far below its peak in the early 1990s, the country continues to struggle with an unacceptable amount of gun violence. Meanwhile, the drug war harms too many Americans and has failed to prevent fatal overdoses from reaching an all-time high.

The report offers five recommendations for policymakers and community members to potentially improve safety without deepening our reliance on extreme sentencing:

  • Implement community safety solutions – Community-based interventions such as violence interruption programs and changes to the built environment are a promising approach to decreasing violence without incarceration.
  • Transform crisis response – Shifting responses to people in crisis away from police toward trained community-based responders has the potential to reduce police shootings, improve safety, and decrease incarceration.
  • Reduce unnecessary justice involvement – Ending unnecessary police contact and court involvement by decriminalizing and diverting many offenses can improve safety.
  • End the drug war – Shifting away from criminalizing people who use drugs toward public health solutions can improve public health and safety.
  • Strengthen opportunities for youth – Interventions like summer employment opportunities and training youth in effective decision-making skills are a promising means of reducing criminal legal involvement.

“A growing evidence-base for all of these interventions demonstrates that policymakers can think beyond police and incarceration to create safety in their communities and should invest in bringing innovative alternatives to scale.” ~The Sentencing Project

Research demonstrates that many social interventions have the potential to be more cost-effective and equitable than criminal legal responses. The highlighted interventions below in violence prevention, crisis response, early childhood education, harm reduction, and therapeutic support for youth are ways to reduce unnecessary contact with the criminal legal system while protecting public safety.

The report emphasizes our opportunity to expand on programs that improve safety while scaling back incarceration.

“By combining social interventions that address some of the root causes of crime and legislative reforms that reduce the harm of the criminal legal system, policymakers can create safer, fairer, and more equitable communities.” ~The Sentencing Project

Excellent research by authors Liz Komar and Nicole D. Porter.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Prison should be avoided whenever possible. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.