Hooray for Michigan! We now have a reason to cheer for Michigan that has nothing to do with the prowess of its sports teams. Last month, the Michigan legislature passed bills creating its first-ever statewide public defense system and, today, Governor Rick Snyder signed the bills into law.
The new Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act creates for the first time in Michigan's history a statewide structure for delivery of public defense services. The law provides for an independent defense function (not completely free from politics and conflicts of interest, but much closer!), county-based systems that are responsive to caseload concerns and allow for resourced, experienced, quality representation of counsel, and regular oversight and support to ensure the right to counsel is protected.
How fitting for Michigan to take this major first step in aligning its practices with the requirements of the United States Constitution during this 50th anniversary year of the Gideon v Wainwright decision, which guaranteed counsel to indigent defendants facing prison time. Better late than never!
The success of this effort is testimony to the value of integrated multi-tiered advocacy:
Public education: The ACLU, in coordination with a broad range of local allies, including the Michigan State Appellate Defender Office, Crossroad Bible Institute, Michigan State Bar, League of Women Voters, and the Innocence Project, who make up the , has engaged in advocacy work for almost a decade in educating the public, legislators, county officials, judges, and numerous others about the import of constitutional public defense. In 2011, the ACLU released Faces of Failing Public Defense Systems: Portraits of Michigan's Constitutional Crisis, detailing how improperly-funded and -designed indigent defense can result, and has, in wrongful convictions. Last year, the ACLU produced a short video profiling two innocent men who were convicted of horrific crimes they did not commit, one spending 30 years in prison in error and one a teenager sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Litigation: In 2007, the ACLU, with local counsel and Cravath Swain and Moore, filed a lawsuit in pursuit of public defense reform in the state. The constant pressure of the lawsuit itself, as well as the chance that the judiciary might fashion a remedy, helped legislators understand the value of designing their own reform template.
Policy Advocacy: Several pieces came together to make a successful whole. Our coalition's advocacy work resulted in the Governor's creating an Advisory Commission in 2011 to study the indigent defense problem in the state. This study led to recommendations in 2012, which were incorporated into the legislation passed and signed in 2013.
The bi-partisan nature of this effort cannot be understated. Legislative leadership from both sides of the aisle, including Representative Tom McMillan, a Tea Party Republican, admittedly unsure about the issue at the start, and Representative Ellen Cogan Lipton, a progressive Democrat became stalwart allies of reform efforts to ensure the government would not take an individual's liberty unjustly.
This new legislation is a momentous milestone. Our next steps are equally critical. Creation of the permanent indigent defense commission, its membership and staffing; development and implementation of specific regulations governing public defense delivery; and monitoring of the process and players leaves significant work for advocates and policymakers in the coming months and years.
And with Pennsylvania the only remaining state in the United States that doesn‘t provide any funding toward public defense, Michigan beats Pennsylvania in more than sports as well...
Want to know more about the current state of indigent defense? Check out , a new film portraying the lives of three public defenders in the South who are part of , a comprehensive model that emphasizes client-centered values, on-going trial advocacy training, and community-building for defense counsel.
Learn more about indigent defense and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.