ACLU Sues Missouri Over Disastrous Public Defender System
State Fails to Provide Adequate Legal Representation to Tens of Thousands Every Year, Resulting in Unnecessary Jail Time, Forced Pleas, Other Injustices
ST. LOUIS — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Missouri, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe filed a class-action lawsuit against the state of Missouri over its unconstitutional system of public defense. The state’s public defenders don’t have the time or resources to provide adequate legal representation and are unable to talk to their clients about possible witnesses, exculpatory evidence, plea negotiations, or trial strategy. The suit asks that the court force the state to improve the public defender system and end its violations of the Sixth Amendment.
“I sat in jail for 42 days before I saw my public defender, who told me that I had a winnable case, but he wouldn’t have time to go to trial for another four to six months,” said Shondel Church, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, who was charged with felony theft but pled guilty to a misdemeanor in Kansas City in July 2016. “In jail, you’re starving on what they give you and you’re dying to get out. I was hoping things would move faster – but those 129 days cost me a whole lot: I lost all that time working, and I finally had to give up and plead guilty, just to get out and help my family.”
Said Jason Williamson, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, “Only because they can’t afford the cost of a private attorney, Missourians lose to the state. This isn’t a matter of guilt or innocence. When the state’s public defense is shortchanged, the entire criminal justice system falters.”
Each year, the Missouri State Public Defender office has more than 80,000 cases. It employs approximately 370 attorneys. In 97% of their cases, Missouri public defenders fail to reach the minimum number of work hours required for constitutional representation, according to analysis by the American Bar Association and lawyers across the state.
“For three decades, the state of Missouri has known about the failings of its public defense system,” said Anthony Rothert, Legal Director at the ACLU of Missouri. “This chronic underfunding has resulted in an equally chronic constitutional crisis in Missouri that has cost the livelihood of thousands of Missourians who are denied justice because their attorneys couldn’t devote the necessary time or resources to their cases.”
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have had to go before a judge for bail hearings without their public defender present. As a result, they faced bail amounts too high for them to afford and spent weeks or months in jail unnecessarily. While in jail, they have waited for weeks to see their public defenders for short conversations that are too brief to cover the relevant facts of the case.
“Enough is enough with appointing commissions and committees to ‘study’ the issues. It has long been clear the state of Missouri is in a constitutional crisis,” said Mae Quinn, Director of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis. “The time is now for our state to take seriously its duty to meet the standards of representation and to stop denying Missourians justice.”
“Missourians charged with crimes must be able to rely on the justice system for a fair outcome,” said Robert Sills, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. “But if they’re too poor to afford a lawyer, and have to rely on Missouri’s overworked and underfunded public defenders, they face added obstacles to justice, for no reason other than the size of their wallets.”
For the complaint and information about the lawsuit:
ACLU
/cases/shondel-church-et-al-v-state-missouri-et-al
ACLU of Missouri
Other resources:
ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project
/issues/criminal-law-reform
ACLU of Missouri
The Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Criminal Law Reform
Shondel Church, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al.
Criminal Law Reform
Shondel Church, et al. v. State of Missouri, 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.