ACLU Sues Idaho Over Defective Public Defense System
Thousands of Defendants Left Without Representation at Critical Points in Their Prosecution
BOISE, Idaho – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, and the global law firm Hogan Lovells filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Idaho asking the court to force the state to fix its unconstitutional system of public defense, which deprives thousands of Idahoans of their Sixth Amendment right to adequate legal representation and withholds the resources needed by public defenders throughout the state to effectively represent those prosecuted by state government.
“Before the government can take away a person’s freedom, our Constitution requires that the case against the defendant be put to the test,” said Jason D. Williamson of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “In Idaho, public defenders do not have the support and resources necessary to fulfill this critical role in our system of justice. The state’s public defense structure is so defective that it puts the integrity of the state’s entire criminal justice system in jeopardy, not to mention the liberty and livelihoods of thousands.”
As the complaint details, plaintiffs in this lawsuit have had to go before a judge for bail hearings, and even enter pleas of guilty and be sentenced, all without a lawyer present. As a result, these defendants faced bail amounts too high for them to afford and weeks or months in jail. They haven’t been able to confer with their overburdened attorneys about the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecutor’s case or learn what evidence the state plans to use against them. Due to inadequate resources, many have not had their cases sufficiently investigated, if at all, and have had no access to expert witnesses to help defend against the state’s allegations.
“Tens of thousands of Idahoans don’t make enough money to afford a private attorney, and for too long, they have been denied their Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” said Leo Morales, acting executive director of the ACLU of Idaho. “Elected officials have deliberately avoided deploying the funding and meaningful supervision that they know we need to actually fix Idaho’s disastrous system of public defense. The state of Idaho must provide the resources and oversight to ensure hard-working public defenders can adequately represent the most vulnerable in our courtrooms.”
Five years have passed since a report by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association exposed enormous and repeated failures in the administration of Idaho’s public defender system. Yet the state government has made only meager reforms since then.
Public defense is the state government’s responsibility, but in Idaho the state has abdicated its responsibility to counties without providing any meaningful funding for trial-level defense, foisting an unfunded mandate onto those counties, most of which have very limited revenue sources. Nineteen of the state’s 44 counties pay attorneys a fixed fee to represent defendants who can’t afford representation, regardless of the number of clients ultimately assigned to the attorney, or the seriousness of the charges against them. This creates an obvious incentive to spend as little time and money on each client as possible — so much so that the Idaho legislature amended its public defense statutes in 2014 to prohibit such contracts. Yet the practice continues.
The workloads for Idaho public defenders are extremely high. In at least six Idaho counties, each public defender’s workload is appropriate for more than two attorneys, according to a December 2014 analysis by Idaho’s Legislative Services Office. The state’s 44 counties have no shared standards for caseloads, training, or performance required of public defenders.
After the National Legal Aid and Defender Association released its report on Idaho’s public defense failures, the state first created a special governor’s subcommittee, then a special legislative committee, and then a state commission tasked with studying and addressing the problem. None of these bodies has established enforceable state-level oversight; instituted state-wide standards for uniform workload, performance, and training; or allocated significant funding to public defense. The lawsuit asks the court to order the state to implement such reforms.
For the complaint and more information about the lawsuit:
ACLU:
/cases/tucker-et-al-vs-state-idaho-et-al
ACLU of Idaho:
More information about the ACLU’s work on public defense is available at:
/issues/criminal-law-reform/effective-counsel
More information about the ACLU of Idaho’s work on public defense is available at:
More information about Hogan Lovells is available at:
Criminal Law Reform
Tucker, et al. vs. State of Idaho, et al.
Criminal Law Reform
Tucker, et al. vs. State of Idaho, et al.
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.