ACLU Sues Nevada Over Deficient, Unconstitutional Public Defense System in 11 Rural Counties
CARSON CITY, Nev. — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Nevada, Franny Forsman, and O’Melveny & Myers LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against Nevada for routinely violating the constitutional rights of people in 11 of its rural counties. By law, every state in the nation must ensure that anyone accused of a crime who can’t afford a lawyer has access to rigorous legal representation. Nevada isn’t meeting that obligation, abdicating the job of public defense to individual counties. Eleven of the counties use contract attorneys, a system in which lawyers receive de facto flat fees and have a financial incentive to provide as little legal assistance to their clients as possible. Such failures violate the Sixth Amendment and jeopardize Nevadans’ right to due process and fair trials.
“I’m facing 67 years in prison. It has been four years since I was arrested, but nothing in my case has been investigated. My contract attorney is pressuring me to plead guilty,” said Diane Davis, a plaintiff in today’s lawsuit who has been accused of arson and animal cruelty. “My entire life is on the line. I need a lawyer, but what I have is a name on a piece of paper.” Since her arrest, Davis has had a series of four contract attorneys.
Too often, contract attorneys don’t investigate their clients’ cases, don’t contact their clients for months a time, pressure their clients into pleading guilty to charges they haven’t investigated, and fail to advocate effectively for their clients at sentencing.
“The state of Nevada has known for a decade that its rural public defense system doesn’t do its job, resulting in injustice after injustice. Yet the state has failed to fix it,” said Amy Rose, legal director at the ACLU of Nevada. “Nevada’s inaction has hurt thousands of people. Think of the needless weeks and months Nevadans have spent in jail—parents separated from children, wages and jobs lost, educations stalled.”
Contract attorneys also have private clients whose cases are more profitable than the cases the attorneys handle for the counties. This creates another financial incentive for contract attorneys to give minimal attention to clients who can’t afford to pay them.
“For too many defendants in rural Nevada, the phrase ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t apply,” said Emma Andersson, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Thousands of Nevadans facing criminal charges can’t depend on their contract attorneys for legal help. How can they defend themselves in court against the government trying to lock them up?”
Many contract attorneys used in Nevada aren’t required to have training, experience, or education relevant to criminal defense.
“Nevada is shirking its constitutional duty, leaving thousands of defendants at the mercy of failing county-run and county-funded systems,” said Franny Forsman, an attorney in private practice who served as the federal public defender in Nevada for more than 20 years. “This problem has been studied for too long. It’s time for a solution that gives all Nevadans their constitutional due: the right to a defense.”
“Whether you’re in a rural area or the city, the right to counsel should always apply,” said Margaret Carter, a partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP. “Instead of allowing so many of its counties to keep using failing contract attorney systems, Nevada must step in and do what the U.S. Supreme Court mandated more than 50 years ago. The Constitution requires it.”
Today’s lawsuit against Nevada marks the eighth case the ACLU has pending over states’ and counties’ inadequate public defense. Nevada joins Idaho; Missouri; Utah; Fresno County, California; Grays Harbor County, Washington; Luzerne County, Pennsylvania; and Orleans Parish, Louisiana. In addition, the ACLU is suing over systematic Sixth Amendment violations by courts in Beaufort and Bluffton, South Carolina; and Miami-Dade County, Florida.
For the complaint and more information about Davis v. Nevada:
ACLU of Nevada:
About O’Melveny & Myers LLP:
About the ACLU’s public defense work:
/issues/criminal-law-reform/effective-counsel/indigent-defense
Criminal Law Reform
Davis v. Nevada
Criminal Law Reform
Davis v. Nevada
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.