*
>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR
EXCELLENCE, AND VIEWERS LIKE
YOU.
>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO
"LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE", I'M
BETH COURTNEY, PRESIDENT OF LPB.
MICHAEL MARSH, A LONG-TERM
TELEVISION JOURNAL CYST WITH US
TONIGHT AND THANKS, MICHAEL.
>> BETH, THANK YOU AIM CROSS THE
STATE, LIEU CITIZENS WHO CAN'T
AFFORD REPRESENTATION ARE
SETTING IN JAILS WITH NO DATE
SET.
WITH THE SHORT FALL, PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICES ARE STRAPPED
FOR CASH.
THAT MEANS THEY'RE ONLY
DEFENDING WHO THEY CAN.
>> THOSE ACCUSED OF FELONY ACTS
INVOLVING VIOLENCE ARE OFTEN THE
FIRST PRIORITY IN MANY
DISTRICTS, OTHERWISE THOSE
ACCUSED COULD BE RELEASED
WITHOUT A TRIAL AND OTHERS SIT
ON A WAITING LIST.
CRITICS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE SAY THE CASH THEY HAVE
COULD BE SPENT MORE WISELY, WE
WILL EXPLORE THAT WITH
JUSTICE ON HOLD: LOUISIANA'S
PUBLIC DEFENDER SHORTAGE.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE DOESN'T GET
FUNDED?
SHE SPECIALIZES IN CRIMINAL LAW.
>> WE HAVE IN THIS STATE RIGHT
NOW A POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO
MIGHT AS WELL BE THE DISAPPEARED
IN SOME OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP.
THEY GET ARRESTED, THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER SAYS, I CANNOT
REPRESENT YOU, AND THEN THEY SIT
AND THEY SIT AND THEY SIT IN
JAIL AND THEY HAVE NO LAWYER AND
THEY HAVE NO MONEY TO MAKE BAIL.
AND NO INVESTIGATION IS
HAPPENING ON THEIR CASE.
>> THAT CAN HAVE DETRIMENTAL
EFFECTS IN FELONY CASES.
>> JUDGES ARE GOING TO HALT
PROSECUTIONS BECAUSE THAT IS NO
MONEY, AND BECAUSE THIS IS THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HOLD PEOPLE
IN JAIL IF THERE IS NO
PROSECUTION PENDING AGAINST
THEM, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET
RELEASED.
AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE
RELEASED.
>> PUBLIC DEFENDERS FROM AROUND
THE STATE ARE TRYING TO RAISE
AWARENESS.
KATELYN GRAHAM IS A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
>> WE'RE FACING MASSIVE BUDGET
SHORT FALLS OF $500,000.
THAT THROAT 35 OF 52 LAWYERS
BEING FIRED.
>> WE WILL CONTINUE AT OUR
PAIRED DOWN SIZE BUT WE'RE GOING
TO DO PROBABLY 20% OF OUR CASE
LOAD IT WILL MEAN THE DISTRICT
NOT OPERATE.
>> THOSE AROUND THE STATE ARE
BASICALLY FUNDED IN TWO WAYS.
FIRST, MONEY COMES PRIMARILY
FROM LOCAL COURT FINES, THINGS
LIKE TRAFFIC TICKETS, AND ALSO
BY THE LEGISLATURE.
THEY GET FUNDS TO THE STATE
PUBLIC DEFENDERS BOARD TO DOLE
OUT TO THE LOCALS.
>> WE WERE FUNDED, $33 MILLION,
BY THE LEGISLATURE.
THAT IS GOING TO BE DECREASED TO
UNDER 13.
AND THAT WILL HAVE A DIRECT
IMPACT ON HOW WE CAN ASSIST THE
DISTRICTS AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING
TO BE FACING STATEWIDE.
>> STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES
DIXON TOLD A LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE RECENTLY LOCAL FUNDING
IS ALSO DRYING UP, DESPITE
RECENT CHANGES LAWMAKERS MADE TO
THE FUNDING STRUCTURE.
>> AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE
LEGISLATURE INCREASED TICKETS
FROM 35 TO $45, THERE WAS STEADY
DECLINE IN THE FILING OF LOCAL
TRAFFIC TICKETS AND CRIMINAL
MATTERS.
THE RESULT HAS BEEN TO
COMPLETELY ERASE ANYTHING THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE PROVIDED FOR
RELIEF FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
DISTRICTS.
>> BUT THE STATE'S PURSE STRINGS
ARE TIGHT.
RETIRED JUDGE AND FORMER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOUG MORROW
HAS BEEN PART OF THE STATE'S
JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DECADES.
HE SAYS HE HASN'T SEEN PUBLIC
DEFENDERS MAKE THE BEST USE OF
RESOURCES.
>> THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS
SUFFICIENT?
I MEAN, YOU CAN, ANYONE, IF I
WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE, AND
YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO
BUY EVERYTHING IN THE GROCERY
STORE, PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE
ENOUGH MONEY IN YOUR PURSE TO DO
THAT.
YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE DECISIONS.
YOU'VE GOT TO USE DISCRETION.
WHAT CAN I AFFORD TO BUY.
>> BUT, METZGERS SAYS LAWYERS
CAN'T PRIORITIZE WHAT THEY DO TO
DEFEND THEIR CLIENTS.
>> THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T
PRIORITIZE WHAT THE BEST WAY TO
REPRESENT SOMEBODY OR THE
CHEAPEST WAY TO REPRESENT IS.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO THE EFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL AND
THAT IS EVERY CRITICAL STAGE.
>> THEY SAY THEY COULD BETTER
PAST OUT WHO THEY SERVE.
85% OF CRIMINAL CASES IN
LOUISIANA GO THROUGH THEIR
OFFICE.
>> IN A COUNTRY THAT IS ARGUABLY
THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
AND THERE IS MORE OPPORTUNITY
FOR CITIZENS TO BE END AND
SUCCESSFUL, TO ACCEPT THAT 58%
OF 85%
OF PEOPLE WHO END UP BEING
CHARGED WITH A CRIME ARE
INDEPENDENT INTELLIGENT HARD TO
FOLLOW, I THINK, WITHOUT CLOSE
TO -- ARE INDIGENT, IS HARD TO
FOLLOW, I THINK, WITHOUT CLOSER
INSPECTION.
>> A CAPITAL CASE IS WHEN
SOMEONE IS A POSSIBILITY OF
SOMEONE HAVING BEEN SENTENCED TO
DEATH, AND LOT OF THOSE MONIES,
MY UNDERSTANDING, ARE AFTER THE
SENTENCING PHASE WHEN THAT
PERSON THAT DEFENDANT HAS BEEN
SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR THEIR
APPELLATE REVIEWS, WHICH THEY
ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED
TO.
>> BUT THOSE KANSASES CASES TAK
THIRD OF THE FUNDING.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF THOSE
COMPLAINING THAT MONEY SHOULD BE
FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT
THE CASE OTHER THAN THE SELECT
FEW WHO HAVE THE CAPITAL CASES.
>> WHEN TEMPORARY RELIEF HAS
COME FROM PRIVATE ATTORNEYS.
HE SAYS THE STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION IS ADVISING AGAINST
THAT.
>> THEY'VE ENCOURAGED LAWYERS TO
LITIGATE THIS AS A 5th
AMENDMENT ISSUE, A TAKING ISSUE.
YOU CANNOT TAKE A TIME WITHOUT
COMPENSATION.
A LAWYER'S TIME IS ITS STOCK AND
TRADE.
>> THEY SAY THE BEST WAY IS
JUSTICE REFORM, ELIMINATE JAIL
TIME AS A SENTENCE FOR SOMEx|ú|x|
MISDEMEANORS THAT WOULD GREATLYú|ú|ú|
REDUCE CASE LOAD.ú|ú|ú|
IN THE MEANTIME, PUBLIC
DEFENDERS WORK THREE TO FOUR
TIMES THE NUMBER OF CASES
RECOMMENDED A YEAR BY THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
DIXON SAYS THAT MEANS THEY ARE
PRIORITIZING CASES THAT COULD BE
A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> IT IS A HORRIBLE THING THAT
PUBLIC DEFENDANTS AND PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ARE PLEASED IN THE
POSITION WHERE A DRIVING FORCE
IS PUBLIC SAFETY.
OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO PROVIDE
EVERYONE WITH A DEFENSE, BUT WE
ARE IN THIS POSITION SO THAT
THOSE WHO ARE IN JAIL WILL
RECEIVE REPRESENTATION, WILL NOT
BE RELEASED ON CITIZEN
LITIGATION AND THEIR CASES WILL,
IN FACT, PROCEED.
>> OUR STUDIOS CEO AUDIENCE
JOINS US TO EXPLORE IT JUSTICE
ON HOLD NOW IT INCLUDES LAW
SCHOOL STUDENTS AND CURRENT AND
PRIOR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND
PUBLIC DEFENDERS FROM AROUND THE
STATE AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
WE THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING
HERE.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT FACTS AND
FIGURES SURROUNDING PUBLIC
DEFENDER FUNDING.
IN THE FAST FIVE YEARS, S OF 31 OF
THE STATE'S PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICES NEED HELP FROM THE STATE
BOARD.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONSISTENTLY
FUNDED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD
AT $30 MILLION IN THE PAST TWO
TERMS.
AN AVERAGE OF 66% OF THE
DISTRICT'S BUDGETS COME FROM THE
LOCALS.
A NEED FOR MORE FUNDS IN 2012,
THEY INCREASE THE FUNDING STREAM
FROM THE LOCALS THAT MOVE IS
PROJECTED TO INCREASE THE LOCAL
REVENUE BY 25% OR 8 MILLION IN
THE LOCAL FUNDING ANNUALLY, BUT
IT DIDN'T HELP.
THERE IS A STEADY DECREASE IN
TICKETS FILED.
IN THE SAME FIVE-YEAR PERIOD IT
DECREASED 29% ACROSS THE STATE.
IN ADDITION, LOCAL DISTRICTS
HAVE COLLECTED ONLY 47% OF
TICKETS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED.
THAT'S LED TO A $7.5 MILLION
DECREASE IN LOCAL COLLECTIONS
LAST YEAR ALONE.
SO LET'S START THERE.
WHAT IF ANYTHING IS WRONG WITH
THE FUNDING SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC
DEFENDERS?
AND, LET ME START WITH HILLER
MOORE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
THE 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
WHAT DO YOU SEE PART OF THE
PROBLEM?
>> WE SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY
THAN THE FACTS YOU ALLEGE HERE.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THOSE FACTS
COME FROM BUT I CAN REALLY ONLY
SPEAK TO BATON ROUGE.
WE START WITH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
RESPECT PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND WE
BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE PROPERLY
FUNDED.
THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE THEY
PROPERLY FUNDED AND HOW ARE THEY
USING THEIR MONEY?
SHOULD WE FUND IT OFF THE BACKS
OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH TRAFFIC
TICKETS?
PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DO
IT BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE DONE
IT FOR A LONG TIME AND CHANGE
WILL BE DIFFICULT.
THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE FAIR.
EVERYBODY HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR
NOT THE FUNDS BEING USED NOW ARE
FUNDED WAY THEY SHOULD BE AND
USED WAIT THEY SHOULD BE.
>> THE FIGURES COME FROM THE
ANNUAL REPORT SO IT IS WRITTEN
IN STONE, SO TO SPEAK, AS FAR AS
THE STATE BUDGET IS CONCERNED.
JOHN WITH THE CAMPAIGN FOR EQUAL
JUSTICE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT
THE WAY IT'S FUNDED?
>> I THINK THERE IS A BIG
PROBLEM BECAUSE THE NATURE OF
THE WORK IS NOT TIED TO THE
FUNDING MECHANISM SO TRAFFIC
TICKETS, MOST OF THE PEOPLE CAN
AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT IT COMES
FROM A GUILTY FEE SO THOSE ARE
USUALLY THE ONES DRIVING,
SPEEDING.
WE HAVE 13 JURISDICTIONS IN THE
STATE THAT HAVE NO INTERSTATE OR
HIGHWAY.
THERE ARE OVERBURDENED SHERIFFS
OR POLICE DEPARTMENTS THAT WANT
TO FOCUS MANPOWER AWAY FROM
TRAFFIC.
IT REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE A
FUNDING SOURCE TIED TO CASE LOAD
OR WHAT THE LOCAL PUBLIC DEFENSE
OFFICE HANDLES AND RIGHT NOW
THAT DOES NOT THAT.
>> THE PROSECUTORS HE
QUESTIONING, ARE THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS SPENDING THEIR MONEY
THE RIGHT WAY.
WHAT'S THE BEG BUDGET ITEM
THAT'S MOVEABLE.
>> IT IS THE SALARIES FOR THE
ATTORNEYS.
IT IS AN EASY WAY TO GET CONTROL
ON THAT KIND OF SPENDING, IT IS
TO PAY THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS AT
THE SAME RATE AS DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.
THEY DO THE SAME KIND OF WORK.
THEY ARE IN COURT ALL DAY AND
THERE COULD BE PARITY SO THE
PROSECUTORS WOULD KNOW, OKAY,
THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE NOT
WASTING THEIR MONEY BECAUSE
THEY'RE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT.
THEN WE CAN KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO
BUDGET FOR.
NOW, WHERE WE GET THAT MONEY,
YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING, I
AGREE WITH WHAT MR. MOORE SAID
THAT TRAFFIC TICKETS IS NOT THE
BEST WAY TO GET THAT MONEY.
WE SHOULD BE SERIOUS IN THIS
STATE AND FUND IT OUT OF THE
STATE GENERAL REVENUES.
>> AS FAR AS THE FUNDING GOES,
ONE OF YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
YESTERDAY SAYS THIS IS A TRUMPED
UP CRISIS.
SHE HAD A CASE THAT WAS DELAYED.
A VISITING JUDGE, SUPPOSE LEAD A
GANG-RELATED CASE.
REDUCED THE BAIL BECAUSE THE
GENTLEMAN HADN'T GONE TO TRIAL
SOON ENOUGH.
SHE WENT TO YOU AND SAID, WAIT A
MINUTE, I THINK THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER BOARD HAS TRUMPED THIS
WHOLE ISSUE UP AND THIS IS WHAT
WE'RE LEFTED WITH.
>> CLEARLY, THIS HAS BEEN COMING
FOR YEARS AND HAS BEEN SET UP
FOR YEARS AND THIS JUDGE IN THIS
CASE, HIS HANDS WERE TIED BASED
ON THE WRANGLING THAT OCCURRED
SO I BELIEVE SHE IS CORRECT, IT
HAS BEEN COMING FOR YEARS AND IT
IS ASSOCIATE WITH THE DEATH
PENALTY, WE CAN'T OVERLOOK THAT
AND IT IS THE MAKE UP OF THE
BOARD AND HOW IT GETS MONEY TO
LOCAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS.
THEY SHOULD RECEIVE MORE MONEY
FROM THE BOARD AND WE BELIEVE
THE MONEY IS THERE AND COULD BE
THERE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND
THEY CAN DO A BETTER JOB OF
COLLECTING MORE MONEYS WITH OUR
HELP AND IT IS JUST NOT BEING
DONE.
>> WHO IS ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES?
IN OTHER WORDS, HOW IS LOUISIANA
DEFINED INDIGENT.
>> I BELIEVE IT IS DIFFERENT
ACROSS DISTRICTS.
IN LAFAYETTE, THERE IS AN
INQUIRY MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER
AT THE 72-HOUR HEARING AS HOW
WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON AFFORD
COUNSEL, AND IF NOT, THEY'RE
SCENED AND ASSESSED A FEE BASED
ON THAT SCREENING.
SO IF THE PERSON IS CONSIDERED
INDIGENT BUT ABLE TO PAY SOME
AMOUNT, THAT AMOUNT IS
CALCULATED AND THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO PAY THAT.
ALL OF THOSE PROCESSES ARE PART
OF THE AUDIT THAT HAPPENS EVERY
YEAR WITH OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND EVERY PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE ACROSS THE
STATE, SO I THINK THIS WAS KIND
OF ALLEGATION IS BEING THROWN
AROUND THIS THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE TAKES ON MORE
CASES THAN IT NECESSARILY SHOULD
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T
ACTUALLY INDIGENT, I THINK THAT
IS A RED HERRING IN THIS.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A FEW PEOPLE
WHO POTENTIALLY COULD HIRE
PRIVATE COUNSEL DO END UP
GETTING REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
DEFENDERS BUT I THINK THAT
NUMBER IS SO SMALL AND
INSIGNIFICANT THAT WE'RE REALLY
WASTING TIME ON THAT DISCUSSION
WHEN THERE IS A MUCH BIGGER
ISSUE AT HAND.
>> DAVID BURDEN FROM THE
LOUISIANA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
ASSOCIATION, LET ME ASK YOU
THIS, IS SHE BRINGING UP A GOOD
POINT, THIS IS A RED HERRING,
MAYBE PEOPLE WHO ARE INDIGENT AN
DESERVE REPRESENTATION AND
THEY'RE NOT SCAMMING THE SYSTEM.
>> WE UNDERSTAND THE DEFAULT IS
SIMPLY TO APPOINT CANALS, IT IS
THE EASIEST THING TO DO --
APPOINT COUNSEL, AND IT IS THE
EASIEST THING TO DO AND MOVES
ALONG.
MANY ARE RECEIVING COUNSEL WHEN
SHE THUD SHUTDOWN
SHOULD NOT BE.
SECTION 175 REQUIRED A $45
ENROLLMENT FEE.
SECTION 176 REQUIRES JUDGES
PERFORM A FURTHER SCREENING TO
DETERMINE IF THEY CAN PAY OVER
AND LOVE THE $40.
IF YOU EXAM A 2014 AND 2015
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER BOARD, YOU WILL FIND
THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW ARE
BEING IGNORED AND WE FEEL THERE
IS A LOT OF MONEY BEING LEFT ON
THE TABLE THAT THEY CAN PAY OVER
AND ABOVE THE $40.
WE COLLECTED OVER $60,000 LAST
YEAR FROM DEFENDANTS WHO COULD
AFFORD TO PAY MORE THAN THE $40.
THEY PERHAPS CAN'T PAY SEVERAL
THOUSAND DOLLARS TO HIRE AN
ATTORNEY IN A CRIMINAL CASE IT
TO THE JUDGE TO EXAMINE THOSE
RECEIVING COUNSEL TO DETERMINE
HOW MUCH THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY,
ORDER THEM TO PAY THOSE SUMS OF
MONEY AND DO WHAT THEY CAN TO
COLLECT THEM FOR THE LOCAL
PUBLIC DEFENDERS.
>> DO YOU THINK IS BEING DONE IN
EACH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ACROSS
THE STATE.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> WHY NOT?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS IN EACH OF THOSE
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.
WE OFTEN COLLECT MORE MONEY IN A
DISTRICT OF 36,000 PEOPLE THAN
THE NEW ORLEANS PARRISH.
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THAT
SYSTEM.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO ASK THE
PUBLIC DEFENDERS THAT, BUT
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID
THROUGHOUT THE FIRST PART OF
HITS STATEMENT.
YOU HAVE TO ASK THE JUDGES THAT.
HE SAID THAT THESE THINGS ARE
NOT DONE BECAUSE THE CASES ARE
MOVED ALONG THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
WHO MOVES THE CASE ALONG IN A
COURTROOM?
WHO CONTROLS THE COURTROOM?
THE JUDGE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THESE DETERMINATIONS IN.
>> THE JUDGE.
NOT THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS SOME
THEN CONCLUDE YOUR STATEMENT AND
SAY THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE TO
GET THIS RIGHT, I THINK IS
MISGUIDED.
I THINK IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TO
COMPLAIN TO, IT SHOULD BE TO THE
JUDGES BASED ON THE FIRST PART
OF YOUR STATEMENT.
>> ACTUALLY, STEVEN, I THINK IT
IS A COMBINED RESPONSIBILITY.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH
THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
$40 EVERYONE ROLLMENT FEE WHICH
DOES IN THE REQUIRE A COURT
ORDER.
YOU'RE CORRECT, IT IS ABSOLUTELY
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGES
IN THOSE CASES AND THEY'RE NOT
FULFILLING THAT RESPONSIBILITY
IN MANY, IF NOT MOST OF THE
DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE.
>> DO YOU THINK PRIVATE LAWYERS,
IF WE'RE OUT OF PUBLIC
DEFENDERS, DINE PRIVATE LAWYERS
SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT
PEOPLE WHO ARE INDIGENT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE
WITH IT.
>> WHY IS THAT.
>> YOU'RE THROWING ATTORNEYS IN
THERE THAT DON'T DO THIS ON A
DAILY BASIS, THEY DON'T
REPRESENT DEFENDANTS ON A DAILY
BASIS.
WE ALL WENT TO LAW SCHOOL WE CAN
ALL KNOW THE LAW, BUT YOU GET
SPECIALIZED IN ONE AREA OF
PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT
COMES TO PUBLIC DEFENSE.
YOU'RE DEALING WITH A PARTICULAR
REALM, A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT
ARE MORE IN NEED IN DIFFERENT
WAYS.
WE HAVE NO HEALTH ISSUES THAT WE
DEAL WITH THAT PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
DON'T DEAL WITH AND MOST PEOPLE
DON'T EVEN KNOW THE LAWS TO IT.
IS MORE SPECIALIZED.
>> YOU DON'T GO TO A GENERAL
PRACTITIONER, YOU GO TO AN
ONCOLOGIST IF YOU HAVE CANCER.
WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME FOR THIS
SECTION OF THE SHOW.
WHEN WE RETURN, WE WILL BE
JOINED BY A PANEL OF EXPERTS TO
EXPLORE
JUSTICE ON HOLD: LOUISIANA'S
PUBLIC DEFENDER SHORTAGE.
*
>> WELCOME BACK TO "LOUISIANA
PUBLIC SQUARE".
TONIGHT WE'RE DISCUSSING
LOUISIANA'S PUBLIC DEFENDER
SHORTAGE.
JOINING US NOW, OUR PANEL OF
EXPERTS.
MARJORIE EISMAN, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE ACLU WHO HAS
FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE NEW
ORLEANS PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE
FOR THOSE WHO LACK
REPRESENTATIVE.
PETE ADAMS, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED LOUISIANA
PROSECUTORS IN THE LEGISLATURE
SINCE 1975.
WE HAVE JAY DIXON, SERVED AS
DISTRICT DEFENDER ON OR IN THE
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN SAINT JOHN,
LAFAYETTE AND OTHER PARRISHES.
AND, SENATE DAN CLAITOR,
OVERSEES PUBLIC DEFENSE IN THE
STATE AND SERVES AS AN ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN NEW ORLEANS
PARRISH.
BEFORE THE AUDIENCE QUESTIONS,
FIRST WOULD LIKE TO ASK EACH OF
YOU, IS THE FUNDING SITUATION AT
A CRISIS LEVEL AT THIS POINT?
MARJORIE, I WILL START WITH YOU.
>> FIRST I WANT TO CLARIFY THE
LAWSUIT WE FILED ALSO AGAINST
MR. FIXst DIXON HERE IN HIS
CAPACITY FOR THE CHIEF PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA SO HE AND I ARE AT
OPPOSITE ENDS OF A LAWSUIT.
I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE BUDGET SO I
CAN'T TELL YOU IF THE FUNDING IS
A CRISIS, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU IT
IS A CRISIS WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO COUNSEL AND ARE NOT GETTING
IT.
THAT'S THE BASIS OF OUR LAWSUIT,
THERE ARE PEOPLE SITTING IN JAIL
BECAUSE DESPITE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL,
THEY'RE NOT BEING ASSIGNED
LAWYERS.
THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE SAYING,
AND NERVE REASON TO DISBELIEVE
THEM, THE REASON THEY CAN'T
PROVIDE LAWYERS BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS
THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT
TO COUNSEL DON'T HAVE COUNSEL.
>> PETE , WHAT DO YOU SAY TO
THAT?
>> MUCH TO THE SHOCK OF MY
MINUTES, I'M GOING AGREE WITH
MARJORIE ON THIS ONE.
I DON'T KNOW THE BUDGET FIGURES
AND HOW ACCURATE THEY ARE.
I KNOW FROM MY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, AND I'M HERE JUST
REPRESENTING THEM THAT THERE
APPARENTLY IS A CRISIS BECAUSE
DEFENDANTS ARE NOT BEING
REPRESENTED.
CASES ARE BEING STALLED.
I QUESTION THE DEPTH OF THAT
CRISIS AND SOME OF THE FACTS
THAT ARE ALLEGED SUPPORTING IT,
BUT APPARENTLY THERE IS A
CRISIS.
>> THE QUESTION IS, IS THE
FUNDING THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED
FOR THEM, HAS THAT FUNDING, IS
THAT FINALLY THE PROBLEM?
OR IS IT A SPENDING PROBLEM?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
>> JAMES DIXON?
>> YES, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A
CRISIS, IT HAS BEEN BUILDING FOR
YEARS.
WE HAVE A DONE OUR BEST TO SEND
ASSETS AND FUNDS TO THE
DISTRICTS THAT NEED THE MOST,
BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT
WE CAN NO LONGER HELP THE
DISTRICTS THAT ARE, IN FACT, IN
CRISIS AND THAT CRISIS IS
SPREADING.
WE HAD EIGHT DISTRICTS THAT WERE
IN FISCAL CRISIS LAST YEAR.
WE ARE NOW UP TO 13 AND WE
EXPECT MORE COMING.
SO IT IS A CRISIS THAT IS
BUILDING AND IS SPREADING
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
>> DAN CLAITOR, YOU ARE THE ONE
WITH THE PURSE STRINGS HERE.
WHAT IS THE LEGISLATURE'S HAND
IN THIS?
>> CERTAINLY WE ARE IN A CRISIS,
AS FAR AS THE FUNDING AND IT IS
NOT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, IT IS FOR THE DA, IT
IS FOR THE POLICE, STATE POLICE,
IT IS FOR EVERYBODY IN OUR
STATE.
WE'VE GOT SOME SERIOUS FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES OF THE.
WE'RE COMING UP $2 BILLION SHORT
IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
ARE WE GOING TO FIND AN ANSWER?
I THINK ULTIMATELY, WE WILL.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT
REPRESENTATION, PER SE, IT IS
LET'S ABOUT SPEEDY TRIAL AND
THAT'S NOT JUST THE DEFENDANT'S
RIGHT BUT I WOULD SAY ALSO THE
VICTIM AND THE PUBLIC IS ALSO
INTERESTED IN HAVING A SPEEDY
TRIAL, AS WELL SO YES, THERE IS
A MONEY PROBLEM.
>> AND ONE OF OUR AUDIENCE
MEMBERS WITH THE LOUISIANA
LEGISLATIVE YOUTH ADVISORY
COUNCIL IS ASKING, HOW LONG IS A
PERSON ALLOWED TO BE IN JAIL
BEFORE THEY GO TO TRIAL?
BEFORE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED?
MARJORIE, WHAT'S THE BASELINE?
>> WELL, I WOULD ACTUALLY DEFER
TO JAY HERE, WHO KNOWS THE
CRIMINAL CODE BETTER THAN I DO.
OAK GIVE YOU THE NUMBER THAT I
CAN'T GIVE YOU.
I WILL TELL I BECAUSE THERE IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
TRIAL WE CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE
LOCKED UP FOR NO REASON OTHER
THAN WE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM A
LAWYER.
PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO A BAIL
HEARING AND PROCEDURAL THINGS
AND NONE OF THAT CAN HAPPEN IF
SOMEBODY WANT AS LAWYER AND
CAN'T HAVE ONE.
SO IT IS MORE THAN JUST A NUMBER
OF DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL, IT IS
WHAT HAPPENS LONG BEFORE THE
TRIAL BEGINS.
>> WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FIGURE, OR
IS THERE?
>> THAT'S WHERE IT GETS TRICKY.
THERE IS A TRIGGER MECHANISM
THAT WILL BEGIN YOUR SPEEDY
TRIAL RIGHTS.
IT REQUIRES A MOTION TO ACTUALLY
ASSERT THAT LIGHT, STATUTORILY.
WHAT HAVE YOU ARE PEOPLE WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION AND NO WAY TO
STATUTORILY TRIG THEY'RE RIGHT, TRIGGER
SO YOU THIS FOLKS IN JAIL WHO
ARE SIMPLY LANGUISHING AND THEY
CAN'T ASSERT THAT RIGHT IN ANY
MEANINGFUL WAY, THEY DON'T HAVE
A LAWYER TO ASSERT THAT RIGHT IN
ANY MEANINGFUL WAY, SO THE
QUESTION IS WHEN DOES THAT
ACTUALLY TRIGGER THEIR RIGHT TO
A SPEEDY TRIAL.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE IN JAIL AND
UNREPRESENTED HAS TRIGGERED THAT
ALREADY.
>> AS A TACKLE MATTER, ARTICLE
701, WHICH IS THE TRIGGER THAT
DAVE IS TAKING ABOUT, JAILHOUSE
LAWYERS FIGURE THAT OUT AFTER A
PERIOD OF TIME AND START FILING
THE MOTIONS THEMSELVES DIRECTLY.
WE SAW ISSUES WITH THIS AS IT
RELATED TO KATRINA AND PEOPLE
WERE LANGUAGE WISHING IN JAIL
AND NONE WANTS INNOCENT PEOPLE
TO SIT?
JAIL AND WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE
THAT DON'T PRESENT A DANGER TO
SIT?
JAIL BUT IT IS A SYMPTOM OF THE
MONEY CRISIS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, PEOPLE DO
FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS AND THEY
ARE SITTING IN JAIL WITH THEIR
REPRESENTATION IT IS A MESS QUIZ
SYSTEM.
YOU HAVE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO A LAWYER AND WE DO DO
BETTER BUT IT FILTERS OUT TO THE
JAILHOUSE WE DON'T LIKE THAT BUT
IT HAPPENS.
>> THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LACK THE
CAPACITY TO FILE THEIR OWN
MOTIONS FORLORN REASON OR
ANOTHER AND THE REASONS ARE MANY
AND VARIED BUT NOT EVERYBODY HAS
THE CAPACITY TO FILE A NOTION
PROPER PERSON.
BUT, ALSO THE ARONNIE IS AS
PEOPLE -- IRONY IS AS PEOPLE
LANGUISH JAIL, THAT IS COSTING
THE TAXPAYER MONEY.
WE'RE NOT PAYING THE LAWYERS TO
MOVE IT FORWARD AND GET THE
PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL, SO THE MONEY
IS BEING SPENT ANYWAY SO TO GO
BACK TO ASKING PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
TO DO PRO BONO CASES, I'M NOW
SAYING GET AN INSURANCE LAWYER
TO DO CRIMINAL DEFENSE, BUT
SOMEBODY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE CAN
THEY NOT BE ASKED TO HELP OUT?
THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE.
CAN THEY AND SHOULD THEY?
>> SO, IT IS A DUTY OF EVERY
LAWYER TO PROVIDE PRO BONO
REPRESENTATION.
OUR TURN IS THIS.
THERE COME AS POINT WHEN IT IS
NO LONGER PRO BONO
REPRESENTATION, AND WHAT IS
BEING FORCED UPON THE PRIVATE
BAR IS THE STATE DUTY TO PROVIDE
A
DEFENSE.
IT IS SO WIDESPREAD IN SOME
INSTANCES IT IS NOT A PROBONE
KNOWN PRO BONO
CASE ANY MORE.
>> AND IT SETS UP INEFFECTIVE
COUNSEL CLAIM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE COUNSEL AT
THAT POINT.
I THINK EVERYBODY THAT HAS BEEN
A LAWYER IN THE CRIMINAL COURT
HAS HAS BEEN APPOINTED ALONG THE
WAY.
I DIDN'T TURN IN A BILL FOR MY
REPRESENTATION BUT THAT'S NOT
THE IDEAL WAY TO DO IT.
>> FROM THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE
WILLIAMS WITH THE LSU HONORS
COLLEGE.
HE HAS QUESTION ABOUT FUNDING
FOR REGULAR PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND
THEN FUNDING FOR THOSE WHO ACT
IN CAPITAL CASES WHERE EXECUTION
IS ON THE TABLE.
WILLIAM?
>> GIVEN THAT WE'RE SEEING A
BUDGET CUT DOWN TO ABOUT A THIRD
OR LESS OR AROUND FRACTIONS OF
THE NORMAL BUDGET THAT WE SEE
FOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND WE SEE
ON A GIVEN YEAR AROUND 33
MILLION, THAT WAS PROJECTED FOR
THE NORMAL AVERAGE BUDGET FOR
PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND A THIRD ON
CAPITAL CRIMES, HOW DO WE SEAT
FRACTIONALIZATION OF THE BUDGET
TAKING UP THE CROWN SHARE,
WHAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT THE
CAPITAL CRIMES WITH THIS BUDGET
CRISIS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON
THAT.
I THINK YOU BRING UP AN
EXCELLENT QUESTION.
MY FIRST POINT IS THAT THE
CRISIS DOESN'T ADD UP.
FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPOSED
BUDGET CUTS TO PUBLIC DEFENDERS,
WE HAD A 50% BUDGET CUT PROPOSED
FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS BUT WE'RE
NOT SHUTTING DOWN TRIALS AND
LAYING OFF PEOPLE THAT BUDGET
STARTS ON JULY 1 AND WE'RE
GETTING REACTION NOW AND NOW
EVERYBODY IS BEING TOLD THAT
PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE BEEN CUT
OR ARE BEING CUT 12 TO 12.5.
THAT'S NOT A FACT.
SECOND POINT IS, WHEN THIS ALL
BEGAN, THE BOARD BEGAN TO
OPERATE IN 2007, THE SYSTEM WAS
FUNCTIONING.
IT WAS NOT FUNCTIONING WELL.
THE STATE PROVIDED ABOUT $7
MILLION TO THE BOARD AND THE
LOCALS GENERATED ABOUT 35, $40
MILLION LOCALLY.
NOW THE BUDGET IS INCREASED TO
33 MILLION FOR THE PAST SO
YEARS, THEY SPENT ALL THE
RESERVES THAT EVERY PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICE HAD AND MANY HAD
$800,000.
$1.2 MILLION RESERVED.
THEY PLAN THROUGH ALL THAT MONEY
WITH ABOUT $90 MILLION ON DAPT
CASES AND WE'RE OUT OF MONEY AND
CAN'T PROSECUTE CASES.
THAT DOESN'T ADD UP.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS.
THAT DOESN'T ADD UP.
ALL I'M TELLING YOU I DON'T
BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CUT
TO 12.5 MILLION AND, YES,
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT
CAPITAL SPENDING.
>> SENATOR CLAITOR, YOU HAVE A
HAND ON THE FINANCE ISSUE.
>> YES, WE WANT TO HAVE AN
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FUNDING.
EVERYBODY ACCEPTED A CUT BUT I'M
WORKING WITH OTHER LEGISLATORS
TO SEE WHAT OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES WE CAN FIND THERE, ONE
OF WHICH MY DA AND I ARE LOOKING
FORWARD TO HAVING A DISCUSSION.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE
SOURCE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS BUT
THE DA'S OFFICE ACROSS THE STATE
PROVIDES AVERSION PROGRAMS.
THAT IS GREAT.
A YOUNG GUY LIKE YOURSELF MAKES
A DUMB MISTAKE AND INSTEAD OF
PAYING IT FOREVER, YOU'RE GIVEN
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TERN OFF YOUR
RECORD.
-- TO EARN IT OFF YOUR RECORD.
THE DA FINANCES THE MAJORITY OF
THAT AND FOR THE MOST PART NO
MONEY IS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
WE'RE WORKING ON A BILL THAT
WOULD PUT SOME OF THE MONEY THAT
WOULD GO FROM A DIVERSION
PROGRAM INTO THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE.
WE NEED COOPERATION AND YOU CAN
CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE DA
GOING WHY AM I FUNDING THE
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE.
THAT IS NOT PART OF MY CHARGE.
WE'VE GOT A DIFFICULT SITUATION
AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR
COOPERATION FROM A LOT OF
DIFFERENT FOLKS BUT CERTAINLY
CAPITAL CRIME IS IMPORTANT BUT
IN LOUISIANA, IF YOU POLE IT,
NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD GOVERN BY
POLL ALONE, PEOPLE LIKE THEIR
DEATH PENALTY IN LOUISIANA AND
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP
BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING USE IT
WILLIE NILLY, EITHER.
ONLY IN THE MOST DRASTIC OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> I WASN'TED TO ADDRESS ABOUT
HOW REAL THE BUDGET CRISIS IS.
SPEAKING FOR ONLY THE 15th
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OUR RECORDS
ARE COMPLETELY OPEN SO ANYONE
HAS ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S BUDGET GOING BACK
SEVERAL YEARS SO ANYONE IS
WELCOME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
FURTHERMORE, THE CUTS WE
EXPERIENCES ARE NOT BASED ON A
PROJECTION BUDGET NEXT YEAR BUT
A $600,000 SHORT FALL THIS YEAR.
IT IS EASY TO KIND OF GET LOST
IN THE NUMBERS AND THE BOTTOM
LINE BUT THE REALITY IS OUR
OFFICE HAS LOST 37 OUT OF 52
LAWYERS IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS,
AND ALL REMAINING LAWYERS HAVE
TAKEN A 20% SALARY CUT JUST SO
WE COULD KEEP MORE PEOPLE ON
STAFF TO SERVE MORE CLIENTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY THE
HUMAN IMPACT OF THIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT TO
HAVE THESE KIND OF ALLEGATIONS
TOSSED AROUND THAT THIS CRISIS
IS BEING BLOWN UP OR IT IS BEING
EXAGGERATED WHEN WE FEEL VERY,
YOU KNOW, PERSONAL -- THERE IS A
I HAVE PERSONAL ELEMENT NEAR
WHAT I SEE DAY IN AND DAY OUT
FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS DEDICATION
OF THIS WORK AND LITTLE TO NO
MONEY JUST SO WE CAN SERVE MORE
CLIENT INTO LET ME JUST SAY, IF
THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS NEED 75
MILLION, THE DAs WOULD SUPPORT
75 MILLION, BUT THE NUMBERS JUST
DON'T ADD UP.
WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THAT MONEY?
>> TOM, CAN YOU ADD TO THAT?
>> IN CATTLE PARRISH, WHERE I'M
FROM, WE ARE PRIVATE LAWYERS ARE
BEING APPOINTED AND WE'VE NOW
LOST SO MANY PUBLIC DEFENDERS
THAT NOW LAWYERS ARE GETTING
THEIR SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH,
FIFTH APPOINTMENTS.
REAL ESTATE LAWYERS ARE BEING
APPOINTED TO REPRESENT PERSONS
ACCUSED OF FELONIES.
THEY'VE NEVER EVEN TRIED A CASE,
MUCH LET'S CRIMINAL CASE, AND
THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS ISSUES.
WE COULD TAKE UP THE ISSUE ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT LAWYERS OUGHT DO
PRO BONO WORK.
WE ALL DO.
BUT WE WOULD KIND OF LIKE TO
CHOOSE THE KIND OF PRO BONO WORK
THAT WE DO THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY
QUALIFIED FOR, AND THE SECOND
THING IS THAT THE LOUISIANA
CONSTITUTION IN ITS DECLARATION
OF RIGHTS, HAS THE STRONGEST
RIGHT TO COUNCIL WHICH I'M AWARE
AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE
LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE FOR A
UNIFORM
SYSTEM OF PROVIDING
QUALIFIED COUNCIL.
LAWYERS SHOULD BE, PLY PRIVATE PRIVATE
LAWYERS, SHOULD BE COMPENSATED.
HAVING EXPERIENCED PUBLIC
LAWYERS IS A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT
WAY THAN PRIVATE LAWYERS AND
COMPENSATING THOSE PRIVATE
LAWYERS.
>> GO BACK TO THE FUNDING
SITUATION BEFORE THAT.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
PANEL, DON'T YOU?
>> YES.
I WAS WONDERING HOW FEASIBLE IT
IS FOR US TO SWITCH FROM THAT
USER PAY SYSTEM IN THE NEAR
FUTURE AND THAT'S JUST A GENERAL
QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU.
>> MARJORIE, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY
TO FUND?
>> WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS
TO FUND.
ULTIMATELY, IT DOES FALL ON THE
LEGISLATURE TO COME UP WITH A
MECHANISM THAT IS ADEQUATE, FAIR
AND SUSTAINABLE.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE ALSO
SEEN BUDGET CUTS THAT MAY BE THE
CASE, BUT IT IS ALSO THE CASE
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ARE
FUNDED THROUGH A UNIFORM,
SUSTAINABLE MECHANISM.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE NOT FUNDED
THAT WAY AND THE USER PAY SYSTEM
ESSENTIALLY PUTS A LOT OF PUBLIC
DEFENDERS IN A CONFLICT
SITUATION BECAUSE THEY ONLY GET
PAID, ESSENTIALLY FORECAST THEIR
CLIENTS LOSE, WHICH MAKES
ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.
THEY GETS PAID BECAUSE THEY HAVE
A JOB TO DO.
WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT WILL TREAT
THEM EQUALLY SO NOBODY IS IN A
POSITION OF HAVING TO BE
CONFLICTED OUT OF THEIR OWN
REPRESENTATION, BUT ULTIMATELY,
IT IS UP TO THE LEGISLATURE TO
SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
IT GOES BACK TO LOUISIANA DOES
HAVE THE HIGHEST INCARCERATION
RATE NOT ONLY IN THIS COUNTRY
BUT IN THE WORLD.
WE HAVE A CRISIS IN THIS STATE,
A GENERAL BUDGET CRISIS, AND
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WE
NEED TO LOOK AT DOING A LOT OF
THINGS DIFFERENTLY, WE CAN'T
AFFORD TO DO THINGS THE WAY WE
HAVE A BEEN DOING IT, INCLUDING
A USER PAY SYSTEM OF PUBLIC
DEFENSE.
>> FROM THE AUDIENCE, DAVID, DO
YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO BE
THINKING OUTSIDE OF BOX?
>> I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO US.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THE
STATE IS IN THE FACE OF A FISCAL
CRISIS.
AGENCIES ACROSS-THE-BOARD ARE
STRUGGLING TO PERFORM THE MOST
BASIC FUNCTIONS, AS SENATOR
CLAITOR ALLUDED TO.
THE LEGISLATURE SOME TIME AGO
PROVIDED A SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCE
OF FUNDING IN SECTIONS 175 AND
176.
SECTION 175 REQUIRED THEY PAY AN
ENROLLMENT FEE WHO THEY ARE
APPOINTED COUNSEL OF $40.
AND 176 SAYS A JUDGE MUST MAKE A
DETERMINATION IF THEY PAY ABOVE
THAT $40 AND THEY ARE ORDERED TO
DO SO IF THEY FIND THEY CAN PAY
MORE MONEY.
MY OWN JURISDICTION HAS A
POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY
36,000 PEOPLE AND LAST YEAR, OUR
PUBLIC DEFENDER, WITH THE
COOPERATION OF OUR JUDGES,
COLLECTED OVER $60,000 FROM
DEFENDANT WHO WERE APPOINTED
COUNSEL.
A LOOK AT YOUR 2014 AND 2015
REPORTS IT IS APPARENT TO ME
JURISDICTIONS ARE IGNORING THE
MANDATES IN 175 AND 176 AND ARE
FAILING TO COLLECT THE $40
ENROLLMENT FEE AND FAILING TO
COLLECT SUMS OF MONEY THAT
PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PAY.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ADDRESS
THAT IN THE PAST AND WHAT DO YOU
INTEND TO DO IN THE FUTURE TO
ADDRESS THAT IN.
>> WHEN I WAS DISTRICT DEFENDER
WE HAD MANY OF THE SAME PROBLEMS
SO WE USED THE LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
AND SO WE BUT HERE IS THE THING,
IT COSTS MONEY.
YOU DON'T JUST ASK FOR LDR TO
PROVIDE WITH YOU FUNDS.
YOU HAVE TO GATHER A REPORT, IT
IS VERY EXTENSIVE AND HAS TO
HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT OWE YOU
MONEY.
WE WERE FORTUNATE IN THAT WE
WERE ABLE TO RELY ON BASICALLY
FREE LABOR FROM A VOLUNTEER
GROUP PROVIDED BY THE PARRISH.
BUT IT WOULD HAVE COST US QUITE
A BIT TO DO IT IN HOUSE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS TO PREPARE THIS REPORT.
WE PROVIDED A REPORT TO THE
STATE AND THEY GARNISHED WAGES.
BECAUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT
HERE IS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH
THE POOR.
I MEAN, PEOPLE KIND OF LOSE THAT
IN THIS DISCUSSION, BUT WE'RE
DEALING WITH THE POUR.
PEOPLE WHO ARE INDIGENT.
SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEEP
POCKETS.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE
RETURN THAT YOU WOULD IF YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT MIDDLE CLASS
AMERICA.
THAT'S NOT WHO WE'RE DEALING
WITH.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A
RETURN ON THE DOLLAR THAT YOU
WOULD EXPECT FOR PEOPLE.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO AFTER
THESE FOLKS, GET A COLLECTION
AGENCY, THEY WON'T DO.
IT COLLECTION AGENCY WON'T DO
IT.
IT IS A LOSING CAUSE.
THEY WILL LOSE MONEY IF THEY
EXTEND ASSETS TO GO AFTER THESE
FOLKS THAT AREN'T PAYING SO
THAT'S KIND OF THE TRICK BOX
WE'RE IN.
SO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT AFTER
THE FOLKSES WE KNEW HAD FUNDING,
HAD FUN, SO THEY HAD TAX RETURNS
AND WE WERE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN
DOING THAT.
AND SO WHEN I BECAME STATE
PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE FIRST THING
WE DID WAS HAD A COURSE AND
TAUGHT ALL THE DISTRICT
DEFENDERS HOW TO DO THAT.
IF YOU ARE IN A DISTRICT THAT IS
SO SMALL THAT YOUR RETURN IS
GOING TO BE VERY MINIMAL,
BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE ARE
TWO PARTS TO THIS, THERE IS THE
$40, WHICH IS FRANKLY IN MY
OPINION A RED HERRING, AND THEN
THERE IS THE REAL POINT THAT YOU
MAKE AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD
ONE, FOLKS WHO CAN'T PAY.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS
TO -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE JUDGE
AND THE DA ON BOARD WITH THAT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK IF YOU
DON'T HAVE ALL THREE GROUPS IN
UNISON DISCUSSING THAT PROBLEM.
SO, WITH THE $40, AGAIN, IT IS A
RED HERRING.
THE OTHER ONE, THE PARTIAL
PAYMENT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE
JUDGE ON BOARD ORDERING THOSE
PAYMENTS THERE IS NOTHING TO GO
AFTER, AND IF YOU DO HAVE A
JUDGMENT, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY
MONEY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED TO
THE LDR TO GARNISH WAGES.
SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU THROW
GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MANY OF THE
DISTRICTS ARE IN.
THEY'RE IN THAT POSITION WHERE
THEY'RE THROWING GOOD MONEY
AFTER BAD BECAUSE IT COSTS MONEY
TO GO AFTER THOSE FUNDS SO WE
TRY TO -- WE TAUGHT EVERYBODY
HOW TO DO IT BUT WHETHER OR NOT
A DISTRICT DOES, YOU KNOWER,
THEY HAVE TO MAKE THAT
ASSESSMENT.
AM I GOING TO GET A RETURN ON MY
MONEY.
WE HAVE DISTRICTS THAT APPLIED
TO LDR FUNDS AND GOTTEN NOTHING.
THAT IS A LOSING PROPOSITION.
THIS IS ONE THING THAT I THINK
EVERYBODY KNOWS, CERTAINLY IT
WOULD APPEAR, THERE IS NO
SOLUTION IN THE STATE ONE SIZE
FITS ALL.
YOU HAVE 42 JURISDICTIONS, THEY
ARE ALL VERY DIFFERENT.
WHAT WORKS IN ONE JURISDICTION
DOESN'T IN ANOTHER.
WE TRIED TO GET FOLKS WE AT
LEAST GET FOLKS TO LOOK AT THESE
ISSUES AND TRY TO FIND A
PROBLEM, BUT WHO WORKS IN OR
LIENS
LEANS MAY NOT WORK SOMEWHERE
ELSE.
THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET HERE.
>> IF I MAY HAVE A BRIEF
FOLLOW-UP, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO
SIZE THAT YOU'RE SUBSIDIZING
DISTRICTS WHO ARE FAIL ORGANIZE
REFUSING TO CARRY OUT THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LAW
TO COLLECT THOSE FEES THAT
YOU'RE SUBSIDIZING THOSE
DISTRICTS WHO ARE AT LEAST
MAKING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT?
>> NO.
>> HAVEN'T WE ALREADY
ESTABLISHED THERE IS NO UNIFORM
RULE PARRISH BY PARRISH,
JURISDICTION BY JURISDICTION AND
HOW SOMEBODY IS DETERMINED TO BE
POOR OR INDIGENT.
DOESN'T THERE HAVE TO BE A
THRESHOLD SET FIRST AND YOU WORK
FROM THAT LEVEL AND GO UP.
IF WE'RE NOT DOING THAT --
>> THAT'S THE ISSUE, WE'RE NOT
DOING THAT.
I'M IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PANEL AND I REPRESENT PEOPLE
CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONS IN
FEDERAL COURT AND ONE OF THE
FIRST THINGS THAT COME TO ME IN
A FILE GIVEN TO ME IS A LISTING
OF REAL INQUIRY WITH ASSETS AND
THEIR ABILITY TO PAY.
I PRACTICE ALL OVER LOUISIANA
BUT MOSTLY IN NEW ORLEANS, BATON
ROUGE AND LOCAL AREAS AND I
RARELY SEE A REAL INQUIRY INTO
WHETHER SOMEBODY IS INDIGENT OR
NOT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS DAVE'S
FAULT, PUTTING IT ON THE COURT
AND WE NEED TO BE BETTER AT
THAT.
BUT EVEN WITH THAT INQUIRY,
THERE'S STILL A SEA OF POOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE UNABLE TO PAY.
AND SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.
SO EVEN IF WE JUST PICKED UP THE
ONES THAT CAN PAY, THAT DOESN'T
SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
>> THE WHOLE IDEA OF PUBLIC
DEFENDER IS FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T
PAY.
>> THERE ARE A LOT THAT CAN, I
PROMISE YOU.
>> IT IS ALSO COMPLICATED BY THE
FACT THAT SOMEBODY GOING IN MAY
HAVE ASSETS THAT GET DEPLETED AS
THEY ARE PAYING FOR PRIVATE
COUNSEL THAT IS DETERMINED THEY
CAN AFFORD.
A GOOD CRIMINAL DEFENSE ISN'T
CHEAP AND YOU CAN DEPLETE YOUR
ASSETS FAIRLY QUICKLY BY PAYING
FOR A PRIVATE LAWYER AND SO IF
YOU WEREN'T INDIGENT TO BEGIN
WITH YOU MAY BE SOMEWHERE ALONG
THE WAY AND THOSE PEOPLE ALSO
THEN FALL IN THE SYSTEM AND THAT
ADDS TO ESSENTIALLY THE BURDEN
ON THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
>> AND TO ECHO ONE OF YOUR
THOUGHTS, MARJORIE, THE MORE
SERIOUS CRIMES DEMAND A MORE
SERIOUS FEE.
SO AS WE GO UP THE LADDER ON
WHAT IS, PEOPLE ARE ARRESTED
FOR, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE AN
ARMED ROBBERY AND REPRESENT
THOSE GUYS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS
GOING TO TAKE MONTHS OF YOUR
TIME AS OPPOSED TO DAYS OF YOUR
TIME, SO THERE IS A DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN THE TYPE OF DREAMS THAT
YOU'RE CHARGED WITH, AS WELL.
>> I'M IN A UNIQUE SITUATION IN
THAT MY CLIENT IN THE JUVENILE
COURT ARE INDIGENT.
I'VE NEVER HAD A CLIENT WITH
THEIR OWN CAPACITY TO PLAY AND
FURTHER, UNLOUISIANA LAW, THEY
ARE PRESUMED TO BE INDIGENT.
OUR JUDGES COLLECT THE
ENROLLMENT FEES AND APPLICATION
FEES AND ASSESS MODEST FEES FOR
OUR REPRESENTATION.
SO YOU FOE, THAT'S -- IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE
IN BATON ROUGE BUT TO GO BACK TO
THE EARLIER DISCUSSION, WHEN WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT
SPECIALIZATION, SPECIALIZATION
IN JUVENILE COURT IS EVEN MORE
PRONOUNCED THAN IN CRIMINAL
COURT.
SO, TO LOOK FOR A WAY TO SIMPLY
APPOINT PRIVATE COUNSEL TO LEAPT
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE --
REPRESENT YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE
CHARGED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE BUT
ALSO HAVE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS TO
COME OUT OF THE CHILDREN'S CODE
WHICH NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ABOUT,
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK AND I'M
CONCERNED BECAUSE ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING IS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT IN THIS FISCAL
CRISIS TIME, JUVENILE DIE DEFENSE
MAY BE THE FIRST AREA CUT.
>> IF THE JUDGES ARE COLLECTING
FEES AND DOING ASSESSMENTS WHY
ARE THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES
SAYING WE ARE OUT OF MONEY CAN'T
REPRESENT MORE PEOPLE.
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
IF THE MONEY SOURCE IS THERE AND
BEING COLLECTED, WHY IS IT BEING
DEPLETED SO QUICKLY?
>> THE MINUTES THAT ARE
COLLECTED FROM THE CLIENTS MAKE
UP A MINUTE US CALL MINUS
BUDGET.
OUR BUDGET IN 2015 WAS, I THINK,
5,101,000 AND WE CAN COMPARE
THAT TO, SAY, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S BUDGET WHICH IN 2014
WAS AROUND $13 MILLION SO THERE
IS A REAL DIFFERENCE, BUT EVEN
GIVEN OUR VERY SMALL BUDGET IN
COMPARISON, THE PART OF THAT
BUDGET THAT'S REPRESENTED BY THE
$40 APPLICATION FEE OR THE
MODEST ASSESSMENTS IS A DROP IN
THE BUCKET.
IT IS A RED HERRING.
>> I CAN PUT IT --
>> LET ME GET TO --
>> IT WOULD REALLY EQUATE TO
$1.5 MILLION AND I THINK LAST
YEAR IT WAS 128,000.
BUT IN OTHER YEARS IT HAS BEEN
400,000, 500,000 SO THERE IS A
BIG DIFFERENCE.
AND IT GOES JUDGE BY JUDGE,
PERSON BY PERSON AND I THINK
EVERYONE HAS TO DO A BETTER JOB
OF THE $40 COLLECTION.
IT IS A LOT OF MONEY.
FOR A BUDGET OF $5 MILLION, YOU
ADD A MILLION AND A HALF, THAT
IS A LOT OF MONEY.
>> HAVE YOUD A SLOW INDICATED TO
THE JUDGE?
-- HAVE YOUD A SLOW YOU ADVO
JUDGE?
>> WE CERTAINLY HAVE, BUT IT IS
A DAILY FEET AND DAILY GRIND ON
EVERY CASE TO COLLECT THE $40.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS GOT TOGETHER WITH
REVENUE AS WE HAVE HERE, AND
COLLECTED MONEY AS WE HAVE, I
THINK THAT OFFICE AND OTHER
OFFICES, MAINLY BIGGER OFFICES,
THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY THEY
CAN COLLECT ON A SMALL AMOUNT
FROM THE DEFENDANT.
>> I HAVE ASSESSED FEES IF THEY
CAN PAY, EVEN IF HE THINKS THEY
CAN PAY, HE DOESN'T NECESSARILY
ASK FOR ALL THEIR PAPERWORK BUT
EVEN IF HE THINKS THEY CAN PAY
HE WILL ASSESS A 100, $150 FEE.
BUT THEN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT
MR. DIXON SAID, YOU HAVE A
DEFENDANT WHO MAY NOT HAVE THAT
$150 WHO THE DA'S OFFICE, NO
OFFENSE WILL OFFER THEM $150 DOS
OF PROSECUTION OR DISMISSAL,
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THAT FIRST.
THE $150 ASSESSED IT IS THE
PDs OFFICE RESPONSIBILITY TO
COLLECT.
WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AND ALTHOUGH I'M NO LONGER
THERE, I STILL ASSOCIATE MYSELF
THERE WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST GOING BACK TO THE COURT
AND SAYING, YOUR HONOR, THIS
DEFENDANT DOESN'T PAY US OWS
MONEY.
THE JUDGE THROWS THEM IN JAIL
FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT WE'RE
DOING AT PUBLIC DEFENDERS SO NOW
IT IS THE PUBLIC DEFENDARIES
OFFICE TO DO AS MR. DIXON SAID
AND TAKE THAT MONEY FROM THEIR
TAX RETURNS, WHICH MAY BE
NONEXISTENT.
>> HOWL DO
NONEXISTENT.
>> HOW DO YOU FIT IN THIS?
>> WE WORK FOR AN OFFICE AND OUR
ROLE IS TO PROVIDE TRIAL-LEVEL
CAPITAL DEFENSE ACROSS THE
STATE, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE
WITHIN THE STATE THAT BELIEVE WE
ARE ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS
WITH THE CURRENT FINANCIAL
SITUATION THAT OFFICES LIKE OURS
RECEIVED TOO MUCH MONEY.
NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT HOLDS
WATER WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
ACTUAL NUMBERS BECAUSE WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IT
WAS ALLOCATED IN THE STATE
PUBLIC DEFENDER BUDGET, LAST
YEARS WAS $9.9 MILLION.
DIVIDE IT ABOUT HALF BETWEEN
OFFICES THAT HANDLE TRIAL
MATTERS AND OFFICES THAT HANDLE
APPELLATE MATTERS.
IT IS ABOUT $5.3 MILLION AND
THAT WASSAL OH WAS ALLOCATED.
WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT VERSES
WHAT IS SENT TO THE DISTRICTS
FROM LOCAL FINANCES AND FROM THE
STATE, THAT IS A DROP IN THE
BUCKET FOR LARGER DISTRICTS AND
MORE RURAL DISTRICTS BUT THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE PANEL, WHAT
DO THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN IF YOU
SHIFT ALL THAT MONEY BACK TO THE
DISTRICTS?
WHERE WE WILL HAVE PRANCE A
MARGINAL IMPACT ON THE ACTUAL
REVENUE IN THE OFFICE, AND THEN
YOU HAVE NO ONE LEFT TO PROVIDE
CAPITAL DEFENSE BECAUSE THERE
ARE TWO BILLS IN THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION, HOUSE BILL
818 WHICH WOULD SEEK TO DEFUND
THESE PROGRAMS AND SENATE BILL
374, MR. CLAITOR'S BILL, WAY PUT
THESE PROGRAMS IN DEEP, DEEP
TROUBLE.
>> MR.ED A.
S.
>> IT IS INTERESTING --
MR. ADAMS.
>> IT IS INTERESTING, THIS BOARD
FUNDS DAPT CASES A THIRD OF THE
APPROPRIATED MONEY FROM THE
STATE AT THE SAME TIME
DECERTIFYING, DEQUALIFYING
ABSOLUTELY EXPERT CAPITAL
DEFENDERS.
THEY'VE DONE IT ALL ACROSS THE
STATE, THEY CAN SEND THE MONEY
TO FIRMS LIKE YOURS.
IT MAY BE THE BEST MOVE BUT IT
BEGS OUR EXPLANATION.
>> I THINK THE EXPLANATION IS
THIS, WHICH THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION IS UPSET
THEY'RE LOSING THE DEATH
PENALTY.
THESE OFFICES HAVE BEEN
EFFECTIVE IN LIMITING THE DEATH
PENALTY IN TERMS OF CONVICTIONS
IN TERMS OF INDICTMENTS FOR
ABOUT THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS.
THESE OFFICES ARE THE BEST WAY
TO WORK AGAINST THE DEATH
PENALTY IN THE STATE AND THEY'RE
UPSET ABOUT THAT.
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD REAL
QUICK, WE HAVE A HIGHS RATE OF
EXON RATION SO THIS ARGUMENT
MIGHT BE A LITTLE MOOT IF THERE
HADN'T BEEN INNOCENT PEOPLE ON
DEATH ROW, BUT HAS BEEN
DISCOVERED SO THEY DO NEED AN
ADEQUATE DEFENSE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING PUBLIC
DEFENDERS CAN'T PROVIDE ADEQUATE
DEFENSE, I'VE WORKED IN THE
CAPITAL AND I CAN TELL WITH YOU
MAY CASE LOAD THAT I HAD ON THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, I CANNOT
ADEQUATELY DEFEND.
>> IF YOU HAD SPECIFIED IN THE
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE TO BE A
SPECIAL DEFENDER FOR THOSE CASES
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
COULD STILL RECEIVE THAT MONEY
AND YOU COULD STILL BE THERE.
I FEEL LIKE IT GIVE AS LIGHT
THAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN GENERAL
ARE NOT ADEQUATE ATTORNEYS TO
REPRESENT THESE CASES.
>> THERE IS STILL NOT ENOUGH
MONEY ALLOCATED TO BEGIN WITH.
IN OCTOBER OF 2015, THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER BOARD AND STATE
PLANNING ASKED FOR
$75.9 MILLION.
A NUMBER MR.ED MR. ADAMS BROUGHT U
EARLIER IN THE COUNTRY, MY
QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT WAS THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
POSITION ON THAT REQUEST.
WE DID NOT TAKE A POSITION
OPPOSING THAT WITH I WOULD NEVER
OPPOSE FUNDING FOR A PUBLIC
DEFENSE EXCEPT WHEN THEY TRIED
TO INCREASE THE TRAFFIC FEES, A
SYSTEM YOU AGREE IS NOT THE BEST
WAY TO FUND YOUR SYSTEM.
THAT IS THE ONLY TIME --
>> DON'T YOU THINK IF THE STATE
WANTS TO EXECUTE SOMEBODY THAT
PERSON SHOULD BE THE BEST
POSSIBLE DEFENSE SO THERE IS NOT
A MISTAKE.
SO SOMEBODY DOESN'T SET ON DEATH
ROW OR IS EXECUTED WHEN THEY ARE
INNOCENT.
I THINK THAT'S --
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE.
HOW MUCH IS THE DOLLAR FIGURE ON
THAT?
HOW MUCH IS IT?
>> WELL, APART FROM THE OBVIOUS
FACT THAT WE CANNOT, AS SOCIETY,
ALLOW OURSELVES TO EXECUTE
SOMEBODY WHO IS INNOCENT WITHOUT
AT LEAST DOING EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE TO PREVENT IT, BUT ON A
MORE PRACTICAL LEVEL, THERE ARE
SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
THAT FLOW TO PEOPLE FACING
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND WE HAVE
AN OBLIGATION UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE RIGHTS ARE MET.
>> I WILL JUST ADD THAT THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE A STAKE
IN MAKING THIS THING WORK.
WE HAVE A STAKE IN MAKING SURE
WE DON'T EXECUTE ANYBODY WHO IS
INNOCENT.
WE DON'T THAT I TRAFFIC TICKETS
IS A WAY TO FUND THATS OFFICE.
WE THINK OUGHT TO BE FUNDED
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
AN ADDED BENEFIT TO THAT LOOK
CLOSER AT THE SPENDING
PRIORITIES AND WE WOULD HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN WHATEVER LEVEL
THEY NEED TO BE FUNDED.
>> AS FAR AS THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, PARTICULARLY MY OWN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HIS BENCHMARK
IS NOT CONVICTIONS AND DEATH
PENALTIES.
HIS BENCHMARK IS, WAS JUSTICE
SERVED SO I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE
THE IMPRESSION OUR DAs ACROSS
LOUISIANA ARE BLOOD-THIRSTY
FOLKS LOOKING TO EXECUTE PEOPLE.
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR JUSTICE AND
JUSTICE ISN'T DONE IF FOLKS ARE
NOT PROPERLY DEFENDED.
NOBODY IN THIS STATE WANTS TO
SEND INNOCENT PEOPLE TO THE
GALLON LOWS.
>> AMEN.
MR. DIXON.
>> ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE
SAID, THERE IS THERE ALLEGATION
THAT ALL MONEY GOSS TO CAPITAL.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
75% OF PUBLIC DEFENSE MONEY
GEAUX GOES TO THE DISTRICTS.
75%.
IT'S NOT HALF, IT'S HE NOT -- IT
IS 75% OF ALL PUBLIC SPENDING ON
PUBLIC DEFENSE IS IN THE
DIRECTS.
WE DO SPEND $10 MILLION A YEAR
ON CAPITAL DEFENSE.
A, IT'S EXPENSIVE.
THIS IS A COMPLAINT YOU HAVE
NATIONWIDE.
EVERY STATES THAT HAS A DEATH
PENALTY COME TO PLAINS ABOUT HOW
MUCH MONEY IS SPENT ON CAPITAL
DEFENSE.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT
THERE ARE DISTRICTS IN THIS
STATE THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY
FOR CAPITAL DEFENSE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PROGRAM,
THERE ARE HALF OF OUR DIRECTS
WILL -- ESSENTIALLY, ELIMINATE
THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE THEY
WILL NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF
GETTING LAWYERS TO HANDLE THE
DEATH PENALTY OF THOSE
DISTRICTS.
I CAN TELL HE CAMERON PARLISH
DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO
HANDLE ONE CAPITAL CASE, NOT
ONE.
>> GIVE US A SENSE OF HOW DIRE
THINGS ARE.
WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME FOR OUR
QUESTION AND ANSWER SEGMENT.
WE WILL LIKE TO THANK OUR
PANELISTS FOR THEIR INSIGHT ON
TONIGHT'S TOPIC.
WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL HAVE
A FEW CLOSING COMMENTS.
*
>> MICHAEL, CERTAINLY THIS IS A
VERY COMPLICATED TOPIC AND ONE
OF THE THINGS WE FOUND OUT
TONIGHT WAS THAT WHEN JUDGES
HAVE AN AWFUL LOT TO STAY ABOUT
--
>> DIFFERS VIEWS ACROSS THE
STATE HERE.
>> AND ALSO, THIS IS A TOPIC
THAT WE, AND A PROBLEM THAT WE
HAVE TO ALL DEAL WITH ON ALL
SIDES BECAUSE IT IS CERTAINLY
SOMETHING WE EXPECT IN AMERICA
TO HAVE.
A JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WORKS.
>> AND, MIRANDA HAS BEEN AROUND
FOR A LONG TIME, AS FAR AS THE
MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED.
THAT'S THE TIME WE HAVE FOR THIS
EDITION OF "LOUISIANA PUBLIC
SQUARE".
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AS LPB.ORG/PUBLICSQUARE.
WHILE YOU'RE THERE VIEW
ADDITIONAL SOUND BYTES AND
COMMENT ON TONIGHT'S SHOW.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
>> INDEED, WE WOULD.
NEXT MONTH, DEATHS FROM DRUG
OVERDOSES HAVE JUMPED ACROSS THE
U.S. DRIVEN BY AN ADDICTION TO
PRESCRIPTION PAINKILLERS AND
HEROIN.
HEROIN REACHED A RECORD HIGH
THIS YEAR, EVEN AS THE STATE
LEGISLATURE HAS INCREASED
PENALTIES FOR DEALING THE DRUG.
JOIN US NEXT MONTH FOR OPIATES
IN THE BAYOU STATE.
THANKS FOR WATCHING US THIS
EVENING.
GOOD NIGHT.
>> GOOD NIGHT.
*
>> FOR A DROP ME OF THIS
PROGRAM, CALL 1-800-973-7346.
OR GO ONLINE TO LPB.ORG.
>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR
EXCELLENCE IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC
BROADCASTING AND FROM VIEWERS
LIKE YOU.
LIKE YOU.