ACLU Settlement Agreement Secures Governor’s Commitment to $14 Million in Added Support for Public Defense Systems Throughout California and Agency Expansion
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California along with its other California affiliates, and the law firms Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Paul Hastings LLP have settled a lawsuit brought against the State of California and Fresno County. The settlement is a considerable step toward ensuring that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is upheld throughout all of California’s 58 counties for all accused people, regardless of how much money they have. Additionally, the settlement will ensure that accused people represented by the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office receive constitutionally adequate legal representation.
Under the settlement, Gov. Gavin Newsom has included $4 million dollars in his annual proposed budget for 2020-21 and $3.5 million annually thereafter to expand the mission of the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD), which currently handles only death penalty appeals. This represents an increase of approximately 28 percent over the agency’s current budget with the goal of promoting more effective representation statewide. The proposed expansion would include broad new authorization for OSPD to provide support, including training and technical assistance for California counties’ provision of trial-level indigent criminal defense in non-capital cases. The proposal also includes $10 million for the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with OSPD, to administer a program to provide grant funding to local public defense systems. This funding will also support the completion of an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of these grants.
“The crisis in California that led to this lawsuit is not an anomaly. Too many public defenders across the country have to juggle hundreds of cases at once, forcing them to cut corners in the investigation, case preparation, and legal research necessary to ensure that every client benefits from the presumption of innocence and the right to counsel,” said Emma Andersson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “To ensure that everyone’s constitutional rights are protected, we need robust public defense systems throughout the country. Governor Newsom has taken the important step of moving California in the right direction on this crucial issue.”
For decades, no state-level agency in California has provided financial or any other support to counties for trial-level public defense services, leaving these counties to pay for and monitor these constitutionally-required services on their own. This has created huge disparities in public defense services, with wealthy counties like San Francisco able to afford meaningful public defense, while poorer counties like Fresno struggle to ensure each and every client’s constitutional rights are protected.
“California is currently one of only four states that provides no state funding for trial-level public defense services and no mechanism for any state-level training or oversight of trial-level providers,” said Kathleen Guneratne, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “The Governor’s proposal is a noteworthy and encouraging step toward moving California off this disreputable list towards a system of public defense that is more equitable across the state.”
The settlement will also ensure that the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office is adequately funded and can therefore provide constitutional representation to each and every client. In September 2013, over 80 percent of the attorneys working in the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office signed a letter protesting their working conditions. These attorneys had so little time with their clients that they often were unable to discuss the circumstances surrounding the person’s arrest or investigate whether evidence existed that could be used in their defense. Among other provisions, the settlement imposes rigorous reporting requirements and requires Fresno County to allocate a minimum of $23.5 million to the Public Defender’s Office next year and at least $24 million for the following three years, representing an increase of more than $10 million over the Public Defender’s budget the year preceding the lawsuit.
“The Governor’s proposal in this settlement is a significant and important step toward the State of California taking responsibility for criminal prosecutions undertaken in its name to ensure that all Californian’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed regardless of whether they are rich or poor,” said Stephen Turanchik, attorney with Paul Hastings LLP.
The settlement agreements can be found here:
- State settlement agreement: /legal-document/phillips-v-state-california-california-state-settlement-agreement
- Fresno County settlement agreement: /legal-document/phillips-v-state-california-fresno-county-settlement-agreement
Criminal Law Reform
Phillips v. State of California
Criminal Law Reform
Phillips v. State of California
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.