Groundbreaking Lawsuit Targets State of Missouri for Unconstitutional Public Defender Waiting Lists
Lawsuit challenges practice that has forced thousands throughout to navigate criminal legal process without counsel
ST. LOUIS — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Missouri, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe have filed a class action lawsuit to end Missouri’s unconstitutional use of public defender “waiting lists”—a practice that systematically deprives thousands of people accused of crimes across the state every day of the court-appointed counsel required by the Constitution.
As of January 7, 2020, over 4,600 individuals, roughly 600 of whom are currently in pretrial detention, were on the waiting list for an attorney in the State of Missouri. These individuals have been charged with crimes and have already qualified for a court-appointed attorney, but are being forced to wait for an indeterminate amount of time for one to become available due to an overburdened indigent defense system. As a result, a criminal defendant will likely wait months, or sometimes even years, before they are assigned an attorney.
The lawsuit details the devastating impacts of attorney waitlists on those who have been charged with crimes and left to fend for themselves and urges the court order the state of Missouri to immediately stop the practice and either immediately appoint counsel or drop any charges pending against defendants who have not been provided with an attorney to defend them.
“While we understand that public defenders in Missouri are tasked with the daunting challenge of providing competent representation to all of their clients, even in the face of extraordinarily excessive workloads, sacrificing the fundamental constitutional rights of people charged with crimes is not a viable solution,” said Jason Williamson, deputy director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “If the State of Missouri cannot afford to hire enough public defenders to properly represent all indigent defendants, it should either reallocate its resources accordingly or significantly decrease the number of people it chooses to prosecute in criminal court.”
Despite being denied an attorney, individuals are still expected to navigate the court system while they wait for a lawyer. After being placed on the waiting list, individuals receive no access to an attorney during critical stages of the criminal legal process, including at arraignment, where bond is often determined with input from the prosecution, but without advocacy from defense counsel. As such, indigent defendants placed on waiting lists are often forced to remain in jail simply because they are unable to advocate effectively for a reduction in their bond amount or release on their own recognizance. Several of the named plaintiffs, when attempting to argue for lower bond, were told by the judge that they had to wait, in detention, until counsel was appointed.
“Reliance on waiting lists constitutes outright denial of counsel to those most vulnerable within the criminal legal system,” said Amy Breihan, attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center. “Without intervention by the court, public defenders and judges will continue to endorse this practice that destroys lives, communities, and any semblance of integrity in criminal proceedings across the state.”
Individuals placed on waiting lists are severely impacted outside of the courtroom as well. Those who must wait in pretrial detention do so without the opportunity to communicate with counsel or build a defense. They often lose their jobs, their housing, any financial stability they may have had, and regular contact with their families. While this is happening, potentially helpful evidence gets destroyed, lost, or eroded. Key witnesses disappear or have their memories fade.
Detailing the urgent and ongoing impact of the waiting lists, the petitioners are urging the court the cease the practice and either appoint private counsel immediately or, if no lawyers are available, to drop the charges entirely.
Criminal Law Reform
David v. Missouri
Criminal Law Reform
David v. Missouri
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.