WE CAN DO BETTER -Part 9

WE CAN DO BETTER 9

By Alan Miller, Candidate for Judge Superior Court II

Fairness and Defense Attorneys 

There are problems within the county court system. In the next several weeks, I will post my proposals that outline how I think we can do better.  

Today, I will continue to discuss my proposals related to fairness in the courts.

Exploring Contracts for PDs 

Under the current system, any attorney who wishes to accept public defender appointments simply asks the judge to add his or her name to the public defender roster and they are appointed to cases by the presiding judge. This results in anywhere from 10-15 attorneys accepting appointments, each billing their time at the rate of $60/hour.

In the event I am unable to convince others to pursue the reimbursement program discussed in Part 8, I would like to explore the possibility of granting annual, flat-rate contracts for a limited number of experienced and competent attorneys to accept public defender cases. Such contracts will be awarded based solely on merit. Further, I will appoint cases based on the workload and experience-based criteria currently used by the Public Defender Commission, also discussed in Part 8. This will ensure that no attorney’s caseload is too large and he or she has the experience necessary to handle the case. I believe this practice could be more fiscally responsible, while guaranteeing the continued improvement of our justice system, making sure the attorneys appointed have the experience, expertise, and time to provide an adequate defense for their client.

Public defenders will be appointed by true rotating basis 

In the event that public defender contracts are unworkable or do not save the taxpayers money, I would be agreeable to continuing the current practice with some modifications. Presently, there is no system in place to readily identify which attorneys or firms are receiving appointments. Under the current system, public defenders are to be appointed randomly by the judge. However, some attorneys and firms are swamped with appointments, while some receive little or none. 

As an illustration, from December 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012, a total of 523 criminal cases were filed in the Dearborn Superior Court II. Of these, 328 cases proceeded with an attorney on the case. Of these 328, public defenders were appointed in 186 cases, or 56.7% of the time. Of these 186 cases, 98 cases, or 52.7%, went to attorneys in a single firm. A total of 11 other attorneys from 10 firms account for the other 47.3%. During this period of time, it is clear that public defenders were not distributed equitably.  

It is important to appoint these cases equitably, so that no one attorney or firm is overwhelmed by their caseload, which could lead to a decrease in the effectiveness of their representation. Further, by appointing cases to attorneys in an equitable fashion, it reduces the appearance that there are a few favored firms or attorneys and helps restore the public’s faith in the local justice system.  

When elected, I will track appointments and make this information available to anyone who requests it. I will do my best to ensure that appointments are disbursed equally; not just to a few attorneys or firms.

This is the nineth part of my platform statement; a detailed proposal for how to improve our current justice system. It will be released over the next several months through facebook.com/makeitmiller2012 and makeitmiller2012.com. PLEASE feel free to forward this to your friends and family.
Thanks for your continued support!

Alan Miller