SERVI CES FOR. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association: Gerard F. Schaefer. Laurence A. Benner John Darrah

Transcription

1 J:-OST OF PROVDNG LJiF~NSE SERV CES FOR NDGENT ACCUSED N OHO December 1974 Consutants: The Nationa Lega Aid and Defender Association: Gerard F. Schaefer. Laurence A. Benner John Darrah CRMNAL COURTS TECHNCPL ASSSTANCE PROJECT The American University 2139 Wisconsin Avenue N. W. Washington, D. C / Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Contract Number: J-LEAA

2 .,!' This report was prepared in conjunction with The Americian University La~v Schoo Crimina Courts Technica Assistance Project, under a contract with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U. S. Department of Justice. Organizations undertaking such projects under Federa Government sponsorship are encouraged to express their own judgement freey. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this report do not necessariy represent the officia position of the Department of Justice. The American University is soey responsibe for the factua accuracy of a materia presented. in this pubication., i'..,, 1'.' j : i ii ;,, '.1 The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration reserves the right to reproduce, pubish, transate, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to pubish and use a or any part of the copyrighted materia contained in this pubication. ~opyright 1975 by the Americ,an University, Washington, D. C. ; : 11 1 :

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWA.RD.. NTRODUCTON A. B. c. Purpose of Study The Scope of the Probem. Overview of Ohio's Court Organization i L METHODOLOGY A. The Court of Common Peas The County Auditor Questionnaire. Feony Statistics a. Cost of Representing ndigent Feony Defendants.. b. Feony ndigency Rate Appeas a. Ohio Supreme Court.... b. ntermediate Appeate Courts Juvenies 5. Menta Heath and Retardation Commitments. 6. Paroe 7. Probation Misdemeanors. 16 a. Number of Cases 16 b. ndigency Rate.. 17 c. Number of ndigent Misdemeanor Defendants 17. COST OF PRESENT SYSTEM. 18 V. v. V.' FUTURE COST OF ASSGNED COUNSEL. ESTMATED COST OF FUTURE OPERATON OF A PUBLC DEFENDER SYSTEM. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSONS ~ APPENDCES A Sampe County Auditor ' s Questionnaire B Summary of County Auditor's Questionnaire Resuts C Summary of Def ender Office Data

4 FOREWARD.. This report documents the efforts of a Nationa Lega Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) technica assistance team commissioned by LEAA's Crimina Courts Technica Assistance Project at The American University to determine the cost of both the current system of indigent defense services in Ohio and various aternative forms which the state might consider. n October a preiminary report of this study was prepared based on the team's preiminary fied anaysis conducted in March n Apri, representatives of NLADA testified before the Judiciary Committee of the Ohio Senate based on both the resuts of the team's fied study and subsequent research performed at the request of Donad Robertson, the Committee's egisative iaison. Foowing this testimony, additiona data was requested and compied by NLADA. This fina report incudes both the resuts of the initia fied research as we as the subsequent data coection and the concusions presented refect both phases of effort.

5 . NTRODUCTON Pursuant to a request by the Honorabe Pau E. Gimor, Chairman of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, the Administration of Justice Division of the Ohio Department of Economic and Community Deveopment, the Nationa Lega Aid and Defender Association, under the auspices of LEAA ' s Crimina Courts Technica Assistance Project of American University, assigned a consutant team to undertake a cost survey of indigent defense services in the State of Ohio. The three person technica assistance team consisted of: Gerard F. Schaefer, team captain, and the Pubic Defender for the Commonweath of Massachusetts. Mr. Schaefer recenty participated in a study of defense services for the State of Maine. La.urence A. Benner, presenty with the Office of the State Appeate Defender for the State of inois. Mr. Benner has been a consutant on numerous projects invoving indigent defense services and directed a nationa study of indigent defense services for t he Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and is co-author of The Other Face of Justice. John Darrah, former Pubic Defender of King County (Seatte), Washington and now engaged in private practice ~ Mr. Darrah.has participated in severa_ evauations of pubic defender offices. A. Purpose of Study The purpose of this technica assistance study was to: L -1-

6 1) Determine the present cost of indigent defense services existing in Ohio, 2) Determine the cost of minimum services required by the United States Constitution under the assigned counse system of deivering indigent defense services in Ohio, 3) Determine the cost of services as contempated by Am. Sub. H.B. No B. The Scope of the Probem The task of providing defense services for the indigent acc~sed has grown tremendousy within the ast decade. This growth is argey due to the increased number of instances in which the state is now required to provide counse as mandated by the Federa Constitution. No onger is the right to counse imited to ony those indigent defendants charged with serious offenses. As a resut of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Argersinger v. Hamin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), no indigent person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether cassifi.ed as petty, misdemeanor, or feony, uness he was provided with counse at his tria. Nor is the right to counse imited to tria representation aone. Today the state is required to provide counse for an indigent defendant virtuay from the time of arrest to reease. The prqvision of counse may be required' during an interrogation of an indigent accused whie in custody of the poice, 1 at post-indictment identification ine-ups,2!escobedo v. inois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). 2Kirby v. inois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972). -2- i

7 .arraignments,3 preiminary hearings, 4 the sentencing stage,5 and on.appea. 6 Recenty in Gagnon v. Scarpei, 411 U.S. 778, 13 Cr.L 3081 (1973), the U. S. Supreme Court moved to extend the right to counse in certain instances to proceedings invoving the revocation of pro- bation or paroe. Counse is aso required in juvenie cases7 and in quasi-crimina commitment proceedings.8 n addition to the Constitutiona requirements noted above, the Nationa Advisory Commission on Crimina Justice Standards and Goas has recommended that pubic representation be made avaiabe to eigibe defendants in a crimina cases regardess of whether or not a fine or jai term is imposed.9 Under the Standards promugated by the Nationa Advisory Commission, represention must be provided beginning at the time an indigent accused is arrested or requested to participate in an 3Hamiton v. Aabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961). 4coeman v. Aabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). 5 Mampa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967). 6Dougas v. Caifornia, 372 U.S. 353 (1963). 7 rn Re Gaut, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). : ' ' 'i i j, 8 sprecht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 606 (1967) 9Task Force Report on the Courts, Nationa Advisory Commission on Crimina Justice Standards and Goas, G.P.p., Washington, ;>. c. (1973). j -3-.! '.11

8 investigation that has focused upon him as a ikey suspect. The Nationa Standards require representation throughout a stages of the proceedings against an indigent incuding the exhaustion of a avenues of reief from conviction, paroe and probation revocation hearings and the representation of ind~gent inmates at any proceeding affecting their detention or-eary reease. C. Overview of Ohio's Court Organization Each of the 88 counties in Ohio has a Court of Common Peas, which is the tria court of origina jurisdiction in crimina cases invoving feony offenses. Cases invoving juvenie offenders are handed in the Court of Common Peas, as are proceedings invoving the invountary commitment of the mentay i. With the exception of a very few countie~ which have defender agencies, members of the bar are appointed by the Court of Common Peas to present indigent defendants charged with feony offenses. The county can pay the appointed attorney up to $300 in non-homicide cases; there is no numerica imit where the charge is murder or mansaughter. This system is funded jointy by the state and county under a unique arrangement whereby the county is. reimbursed by the State ony if a defendant is sentenced to the State Penitentiary. f any other disposition is made of the case, such as aquitta, dismissa, or probation, the county is not reimbursed. n 1973, the tota State reimbursement to the counties amounted to $1,726, (t shoud be noted, however, that this figure incudes -4-

9 ... : 11 1'!. sheriff, witness and jury fees as we as transportation and other misceaneous costs). n 1971, the State reimbursement amounted to $792, for attorneys' fees aone. This system of reimbursement, athough free of the specific infirmities of the mayora court system considered in Ward v. Monroevie, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), is at east arguaby akin to the mayora system in that the judge is an eected officia of the county and a substantia proportion of county revenues may be derived from State reimbursement. Beow the Court of Common Peas, municipa and county courts exercise jurisdiction in cases invoving misdemeanor offenses. Preiminary hearings on feony matters are aso hed at this eve. There are 108 municipa courts with jurisdiction over approximatey 85 per cent of the popuation of Ohio. Additionay, there are 43 c9unty courts with simiar jurisdiction over about 15 per cent of the popuation. 11 Appointed counse are generay unpaid for representation provided to those accused of misdemeanors in the ower courts and are ony compensated for preiminary hearings, if at a, when the case is referred to the Common Peas Court. t has been estimated that there are perhaps 546 mayors' courts in the state.1 2 These courts have jurisdiction over some misdemeanors, Oconversation with State Auditor's Office 11 survey of Court Organization in Ohio, Legisative Service Commission, Preiminary Report on Mayors' Courts, Legisative Service Commission,

10 \; usuay traffic offenses. Mayors cannot try jury cases, and under,, i J Ward v. Monroevie, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), many cannot try contested cases. t seems fairy safe to assume that few cases invoving indigent defendants are heard by these courts and that no provision is presenty made for compensating appointed counse. Eeven Courts of Appeas serve as intermediate appeate courts with the Supreme Court as the court of ast resort in the State. Appointed counse are compensated by the county in these courts at a rate simiar to that provided by the Courts of Common Peas. t i. -6-

11 . METHODOLOGY The team members wish to acknowedge the spirit of cooperation which prevaied on the part of individuas and agencies whose assistance was requested throughout this project. At the outset the team was confronted by the ack of detaied statewide statistics concerning ' ;, d it crimina justice activities and expenditures. This often required the gathering of individua statistics from each county. n some instances the faiure to uniformy keep statistics at the county eve necessitated the use of projections based upon avaiabe data. Whenever such projections are utiized the underying basis is set forth in detai. Prior to arriving in Ohio the team was thoroughy briefed concerning the operation of Ohio ' s crimina justice system in a four and one-haf hour session hed in Chicago. Participants at this briefing session incuded Marsha J. Hartman, Nationa Director of Defender Services, the Nationa Lega Aid and Defender Associaion; Professor Shevin Singer, who conducted an extensive survey of indigent defense services in Ohio in 1972; Patrick Hughes, member of the NLADA technica assistance team which assisted in setting up the New Mexico statewide defender system; Yakov Avichai, statistician with the American Bar Foundation; Robert Cambridge, Senior Attorney, Ohio, Legisative Service Commission; Anne Stevens, consutant to the Nationa Defender Survey and the inois Defender Project Survey, 1973; and Nancy Godberg, Deputy Director of Defender Services, NLADA. -7-

12 The team arrived in Coumbus, Ohio on March 11, The primary resource toos utiized by the team in gathering data incuded a county au~itor questionnaire (attached as Appendix A) which was administered via teephone to 88 auditors, and teephone interviews with the directors of defender agencies, ega aid societies and HUD Mode Cities Defender Offices. We are particuary gratefu to Joseph A. White, Deputy Director, Administration of Justice Division, Ohio Department of Economic and Community Deveopment; Gerad R. Back, Court's Speciaist and Joan Peetier and Shirey Pickens, staff, for their invauabe assistance in administering this phase of the project. Other data sources incude statistics gathered under the supervision of Dougas Somerot, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Judge of the Ohio Supreme Court; and data pubished by the Bureau of Statistics, Division of Business Administration, Department of Menta Heath and Menta Retardation. n addition, the team had access to numerous secondary sources incuding Professor Singer's C Survey of Defense Services to the ndigent Criminay Accused in Ohio, 1972; Ohio's 1974 Comprehensive Crimina Justice Pan; data t from the Nationa Defender Survey and memoranda from the Legisative Service Commission.,"'i., ,111 ;f. ' ' ' ii.. '

13 A. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1. The County Auditor Questionnaire n order to determine the cost of indigent defense representation in the Court of Common Peas, a county auditor questionnaire was devised. Originay drafted at the Chicago briefing session, this questionnaire3 was refined after consutation at the Ohio State Auditor's office and a pre-test of the questionnaire in the Frankin County Auditor's office. The questionnaire was administered by teephone. 14 Auditors were asked specificay to give the amount they were reporting in their 1973 Financia Report to the State Auditor under ine item A2B6 entited "Attorneys' Fees." Under the Chart of Accounts this item represents the amount paid to attorneys as~ign~d to represent indigent defendants, in the Court of Common Peas. n ony four counties, Geauga, Hancock, Knox, and Summit was this figure unavaiabe. Figures from the 1972 Financia Reports of these counties, obtained from the State Auditor's office, were therefore substituted in these cases. The tota amount spent by a counties for the payment of assigned counse fees in the Court of Common Peas was determined at $2,398, The auditors were aso asked whether the above mentioned ine item ii " ent~ted "Attorneys' Fees" incuded payment of attorneys appointed to 13see Appendix A for sampe questionnaire. 14 see Appendix B for county by county resuts. ' -9-

14 represent indigent juvenies charged with crime and indigent persons invountariy connnitted to menta institutions. n the vast majority of counties (approximatey 73%) these payments were not incuded under this ine item but were reported separatey as part of Juvenie or Probate Division costs. n the majority of these counties the amount paid as attorneys' fees was umped together with other costs. Given the time constraints and imits of the auditor's patience it was therefore in most instances impossibe to break out of the actua amount spent on juvenie and menta commitment representation. For the 18 counties for whom these figures coud be obtained, the tota amount spent and reported separatey for juvenie representation was $26,993. See - A-4. Juvenies, infra at 13. Auditors were aso requested to determine the actua number of cases in which payouts under ine item A2B6 "Attorneys' Fees" were made. This was done by physicay counting the numbers of vouchers paid out under this ine item. Where a singe voucher refected payment on more than one case, the auditor was instructed to give the tota number of cases represented by the voucher. Ony seven counties were unabe to furnish this information. These incuded the four counties previousy mentioned for which 1973 data was unavaiabe, and Crawford, Lake, and Ross counties. A tota of 11,670 common peas cases, requiring the appointment of counse, were t reported by auditors from the 81 remaining counties

15 2. Feony Statistics a. Cost of Representing ndigent Feony Defendants As noted above, approximatey $2.4 miion was spent in 1973 by a 88 counties for indigent defense in the Court of Common Peas. This figure incudes payment for some juvenie, menta commitment and appeate representation. n the great majority of counties, however, payments for juvenie and menta commitment representation were reported separatey and thus were not incuded in this fugure. This amount therefore provides a fair indication of the cost of feony common peas representation provided by assigned counse. t shoud be noted that the $2.4 miion figure does not incude the cost of representing 1,751 indigent feony defendants who obtained defense services through various defender agencies. Neither does it refect the cost of representation provided by both defenders and assigned counse at feony priminary hearings hed in the ower courts. Utiizing ony the data from counties for which both cost and caseoad figures were avaiabe (81 counties), and dividing the tota amount spent in these counties by the tota number of cases represented,. it appears that the average cost per case for feony representation is 1 t ~ ~ $ ($2,175,908 divided by 11,670 = $186.45). The cost per case ranged from a high of $1,125 to a ow of $61. b. Feony ndigency Rate The rate of indigency among feony defendants who had their cases disposed of at the tria eve during 1973 was 57.3%. This figure -11- r t

16 , was arrived at using the tota number of a feony cases terminated during 1973, 25, 833. n Ohio 11, 670 indigent feony cases were reported by the 81 responding counties. To t his was added 1,751 indigent feony cases known to be represented in the Court of Common Peas by defender agencies. Fifty-six appea cases were then subtracted from the tota of these two figures, yieding a tota of 13,365 known indigent feony defendants in tria courts in the 81 reporting counties. To account for the additiona seven non-responding counties, assuming no other significant variabes exist, the ratio of feony cases to popuation in the 81 reporting wi be the same as the ratio of non- reporting counties. Thus, feony cases (81 reporting counties) popuation (81 reporting counties) feony cases (7 non- reporting counties) popuation (7 non- reporting counties Substituting the known figures and x for the unknown yieds: 13,365 x 9, 513,895 1, 028,135 J , ' 11 j. ( 'j i :

17 Soving for x, 13, ,513,895 1,444 ndigent Caseoad for seven counties Tota State ndigent Caseoad 13,365 14,809 (Seven Counties) ( 81 Counties) Tota State ndigency Rate 14,809 25, % x = 1,444 1, % Thus the feony indigency rate for a 88 counties is~ t shoud be noted that this figure probaby represents a conservative estimate. Cases may have been reported by some defender agencies and some assigned counse may have faied to seek prompt payment for cases competed during the fina months of 1973, athough this might be compensated for by an overap from average of indigency in feony matters is approximatey 65%. The nationa [L. Benner and B. Lynch, The Other Face of Justice: Report of the Nationa Defender. Survey, 83 (NLADA 1973)]. 11~11 ',. r 11 ;~ ~,),j j '! j i "! '11 J J 3. Appeas a. Ohio Supreme Court A statistics in this section. were obtained from Dougas Somerot, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the Ohio -13- t : f.

18 Supreme Court. crimina cases. During 1973 there were 330 appeate actions invoving These incuded "merit motions" seeking discretionary review in the Supreme Court as we as actua appeas. Fifty-six of these invoved indigent defendants. Thus the indigency rate among those crimina appeants seeking review in the Supreme Court is 17% (56 divided by 330 = 16.9%). The tota cost of representing these indigent appeants was $23, Appointed counse are paid a fat rate of $300 pus outof-pocket expenses for "merit motions." Counse is paid again at the same rate if the motion is granted. The average cost per case in the Supreme Court for indigent appeate representation wa~ ~ The highest fee paid for one case was $1, This amount was distributed between two assigned attorneys. The highest amount paid to a singe attorney was $ b. ntermediate Appeate Courts There were 1, 648 crimina appeas handed in the eeven intermediate appeate courts. No statistics were avaiabe to determine the number of indigent appeants or the cost of their representation. By appying the common peas feony indigency rate to the appeate caseoad, however, it woud appear that approximatey 949 appeants woud be unabie to afford an attorney. Thus, incuding appeants seeking review in the Supreme Court, a tota of 1000 appeants require indigent services annuay. -14-

19 Juvenies / The juvenie statistics as to caseoad are somewhat conficting. The 1972 Ohio Courts Surmnary states that 156,380 cases were terminated in the Juvenie Division during that year. However, the Ohio Juvenie Court Statistics for 1972 pubished by the Department of Menta Heath and Menta Retardation yieds a tota of 149,489 cases that might be considered juvenie. (That is, deinquency, traffic, dependency and negect, specia services, and hearings to determine whether the defendant shoud be tried as an adut or a juvenie, and cases charging.' that the chid is unruy). f the 68,476 traffic cases are subtracted from the Department of Menta Heath figures, one is eft with a minimum of 81,013 more serious juvenie cases. Assuming a 57. 3% rate of indigency (a most conservative estimate here), approximatey 46,420 juvenies woud have required the appointment of counse in Given the frequency of an adversary reationship between parent and chid in juvenie matters, and the infrequency of juvenies having their own resources, an indigency rate of two-thirds, however, woud not appear to be too high. L L 5. Menta Heath and Retardation Commitments As in the case of juvenie statistics, no soid data were avaiabe for menta heath cases. However, there were apparenty ony 4,743 invountary court commitments of a types in the year ending June, 1973 (Data from Department of Menta Heath and Menta Retardation). Many of these cases woud be dupicative, that is, a series of commitments in one " case". -15-

20 Others woud fa within the ambit of a given crimina prosecution and the costs incuded therein. From the Department of Menta Heath's report, however, it woud appear that approximatey five hundred (500) commitments which were both indefinite and invountary and which woud require the assistance of counse. 6. Paroe The team was informed that there were 432 paroe revocation hearings for which counse woud be required. A rate of 90% indigence wou~d comport with the?ationa average. Thus, 389 indigent defendants woud be eigibe for pubic representation at paroe revocation proceedings, 7. Probation As there is no centra reporting agency, it was impossibe to gather meaningfu probation revocation statistics. Each probation!. authority woud have to be contacted separatey to determine even the gross number of hearings hed. 8. Misdemeanors a. Number of Cases The number of non- traffic misdemeanors terminated during 1972 was obtained from jurisdictions representing 63% of the tota popuation. These jurisdictions, which refected a representative portion of urban and rura jurisdictions, terminated a tota of 179,000 non-traffic cases

21 . f 1 1 b. ndigency Rate A misdemeanor indigency rate of 41.4% was obtained. This rat~ was found by comparing the known indigency feony rate (57.3%) with the nationa indigency feony rate (65%) and appying the same ratio to the nationa indigency rate for misdemeanants (47%). 57.3% 65% x 47% x = 41.4% An independent check was made of pubic defender agencies that represent misdemeanants. Thus, These agencies gave an average estimate of 42%. t shoud be emphasized that this estimate does not incude 1 11!!. ',, : drunk driving cases which, under present Ohio aw, woud require the appointment of counse. c. Number of ndigent Misdemeanor Defendants Sine~ misdemeanor caseoad statistics were avaiabe for ony 63% of the popuation the projected tota number of indigent nontraffic misdemeanor defendants was obtained as foows: (179,000 ~ 63%) x 41.4% 117,629 indigent cases. -17-

22 p /. COST OF PRESENT SYSTEM. PRESENT COST OF ASSGNED COUNSEL AND PUBLC DEFENDERS t. $2,398, (Feony representation ony) $5,214, 613 Pa)11ents as reported by 81 county. auditors for 1973, and by 7 county auditor's 1972 reports. +$399, $2,798, $2, 416, Projected amount spent in juvenie cases. Based on actua reports from some counties, and extrapoated to others. Tota Assigned Counse Cost Amounts reported by 21 defender agencies, Lega Aid Societies, Mode Cities Projects and Law Schoo Projects for These agencies and projects were primariy funded by the federa government. (ncudes feony, misdemeanor, juvenie and menta heath representation). $5,214, TOTAL COST OF PRESENT SYSTEM As the chart above iustrates the tota cost of the present indigent defense system in Ohio incuding assigned counse costs and federay funded defender agencies, ega aid societies and projects is $5,214, t shoud be noted that since counse generay is either not provided or not compensated in misdemeanor cases, this figure does not represent the true cost of providing constitutionay mandated defense services. -18-

23 [ As expained in detai, supra, the data for 1973 defense of feony indigents represented by assigned counse, was compied by teephone responses from auditors of 81 counties concerning their [ 1973 payments; and from the 1972 audits of seven other counties. They refect the actua amounts paid to assigne.d counse. Accurate figures on the cost of juvenie representation by assigned counse were ony avaiabe from 18 counties. The team used statistica methods to project costs in the counties which had not reported any juvenie figures. The amount.spent by federay funded defender agencies, ega aid societies and projects, etc. was obtained by teephone interviews~ t shoud be noted that the scope of representation provided by this group of 21 agencies and projects varied consideraby from agency to agency. V. FUTURE COST OF ASSGNED COUNSEL Because the figures given in Section incude the figures for severa federay funded OEO, Mode Cities, and simiar projects and programs, which provided defender services in whoe or in part, and which being federay funded, therefore are intended to continue ony for certain specified periods of time, the figures given beow are projections of the cost of suppying a indigent defense needs through assigned counse systems i i 1 1.

24 n order to determine the cost of providing constitutionay mandated defense service by assigned counse ony, the appicabe rate of indigency was appied to the tota number of cases handed by the courts in 1973 in each category. The number of indigent cases in each category was then muti pied by a minim.um attorney fee to arrive at the estimated cost of providing assigned counse in the future. Figures deveoped under each category were: Tota Ohio Rate of ndigent Attorney Cases ndigency Cases Fee FELONY 25, % 14,809 $ JUVENLE 81, % 46, (non-traffic) MSDEMEANOR 284, % 117, (non-traffic) APPEALS16 1, % MENTAL HEALTH PAROLE % TOTAL NLADA ESTMATE OF COST OF ASSGNED COUNSEL Tota $4,442, ,642, ,763, , , ; $21,337, Assuming maximum aowabe under statute is actuay spent in every case. 16noes not incude appeas by. indigents to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Given Ross v. Moffit, 94 S.Ct (1974), counse apparenty need not be provided indigents on appeas from the Appeate Court. -20-

25 A figure of $100 was used in determining the cost of assigned counse in each juvenie, misdemeanor, menta heath, and paroe case. The amended substitute bi raises the amount which may be paid to assigned counse to a maximum of $ in a cases. Obviousy, the maximum payabe amount woud be triped if the fu amount were aowed in each such case. V. ESTMATED COST OF FUTURE OPERATON OF AN ORGANZED DEFENDER SYSTEM The projected cost of providing constitutionay mandated defense services through impementation of H.B. 107 is $13,993, The chart beow cacuates the cost of impementing H.B. 107 by estimating the number and types of empoyees a pubic defender office must have to hande a crimina caseoad equa to the number of crimina cases reported by the Ohio courts in 1973, excuding misdemeanor traffic cases and juvenie traffic cases. Appropriate pay range schedues, taken from the Revised Code, were then used to determine the tota amount of saaries which woud have to be paid to these empoyees. Twenty- five per cent of the amount of the saaries was then added to the tota to refect an estimated 15% which woud have to be paid ~ut for fringe benefits, and an estimated 10% which woud have to be paid out for overhead. -21-

26 t is estimated that the system woud require one director, one deputy director, five heads of departments (one each as head of feony, misdemeanor, juvenie and appeate sections; and one to direct training), approximatey 11 regiona supervisors, and 550 staff attorneys. The system woud aso require one investigator for every three attorneys; and one secretary for every two attorneys. These estimates come from standards estabished by the Nationa Advisory Commission Crimina Justice Standards and Goas and NLADA as a resut of their study of.existing systems. The recommended yeary workoad for attorneys is 150 feony cases per attorney, 400 misdemeanor cases per attorney, 400 juvenies cases per attorney (the nationa.standards is ony 200, but this study beieves 400 coud be handed in the Ohio juvenie court system), and 25 appeate cases per attorney. These figures were obtained from Standard of the Courts ' Task Force Report of the Nationa Advisory Commission on Crimina Justice Standards and Goas Director of Defense Services Deputy Director Heads of Department (Feony, Juvenie, Misdemeanor, Appeate and Training) $20,654 each; Assistant 4, No. 38 Regiona Supervisors, $16, 578 each nvestigators (1 for every 3 attorneys) $8,382 each; Rate 16 Secretaries (1 for every 2 attorneys) $7,321 each; Rate 12 $ 26, , , , ,517, ,971,

27 f j.::::c:; - ;A 544 Tria and Appeate Attorneys as foows: Reconmended No. of Type of Crimina No. in. Ohio Rate of No. of ndigent Work1oad Attorneys Pay Tota Case in 1973 ndiqenc~ Cases Attorne,:t Reguired Range Sa ar,:t Saaries Feony 25,833' , Ass't 2 $14,414 $1, 411,41~ No. 30 Misdemeanors,excuding traffic 284, , Ass't 1 12,938 3,:..752,020 No. 27 i \ Juvenie,excuding 81,013 ' , Ass't 12,938 '500,803 traffic No Court of Appeas 1, Ass't 3 16, ,964 No. ~3 Menta Heath ~ Ass't 3 16,578 16,578 No. 33 Paro e ~eari ngs % Ass't 3 16,578 16,578 No. 33 Tota Saaries 11,287,787 A~d 25% (15% fringe,. and 10% overhead) 2,821, Add for trave, per diem, and expenses of Ohio Pub1c Defender Commission 8, ,993, The above 14 miion doar cost figure assumes that pubic defenders wi represent a indigent defendants in a proceedings where constitutionay required. As can be seen from the chart a saaried staff awyer specaizing in crimina matters can hande a much greater caseoad at a fixed cost than can private attorneys appointed and compensated on a case by case basis. Hence the comparative reduction in cost between the two systems. t shoud be noted that in some cases invoving mutip1e defendants it wi sti1 be necessary to utii ze appointed. counse to hand1e confict of interest situations. To the extent assigned counse are used, however, the need for staff attorneys is proportiona1y offset. Therefore the cost figure shoud remain substantiay unchanged. t shoud aso be noted that H.B. 107 contempates estabishing a state pubic defender co!tffiission.. The cost for trave~ per oiem expenses and secretaria services for commission members is estimatea to be ~8,0U O. Tnis cust 1s inc1uticd in the tota cost to impement H.B ijoes not incude appeas by indigents to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Sec!!.. 16 ~~at 17.

28 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSONS The purpose of this Technica Lega Assistance Study was to: 1) Determine the present cost of indigent services existing in Ohio; 2) Determine the cost of minimum services required by the United States Constitution under the assigned counse system of deivering indigent defense services in Ohio; 3) Determine the cost of services as contempated by Am. Sub. H.B. No With respect to (1), the NLADA Technica Assistance Team estimated the present cost of indigent defense services as $5,214, With respect to (2), the Team found that the cost of suppying the minimum indigent defense services to be an estimated $21,337, As to (3), the Team determined that the cost of such services under H. B. No. 107 woud be approximatey $13,992,

29 APPENDCES t 1. - ~ ' A. SAMPLE COUNTY AUDTOR QUESTONNARE B. SUMMARY OF COUNTY AUDTOR QUESTONNARE RESULTS. C. SUMMARY OF DEFENDER OFFCE DATA.

30 APPENDX A - SAMPLE COUNT~ AUDTOR QUESTONNA.RE Refused / nformation Not Avaiabe Ca Back Time: / Other ~ COUNTY AUDTOR QUESTONNARE 1. Name of County ~ 2. Auditor's Phone Number Name and Tite of Person nterviewed (Name) (Tite) 4. What is the amount you reported in your 1973 Financia Report under "Attorney Fees", page 18, ine item A2B6? 5. Do you incude payment of attorney fees for representing juvenies and persons facing menta heath commitments under this ine item? (A2B6) Yes No (1) Juvenie Fees $ (2) Menta Heath $ Woud you pease count up the actua number of cases which.payouts under this ine item (A2B6) were made. (Number of Cases) 7. Do you know if attorney fees are being paid for representatio~ provided in ower courts other than Court of Common Peas for indigent misdemeanor defendants? Yes No Don' t Know f Yes: County pays / / Amount incuded in A2B6 Figure / Reported separatey $ Municipaity pays Who can we contact to find out amount? Name Tite. Phone.

31 j i. ~ 1 j A1212endix 13 (~ figures are for 1973 un~ss (:!<)asterisked.) SUMMARY OF COUNTY AUDTOR QUESTONNARE RESULTS COUNTY AMOUNT of ATTORNEYS' FEES NO. CASES COST PER CASE *Summit.,_ $ 162, $ '."Hancock 11, >:<Knox 4, , _J >:<Geauga 2, / ""Lake 23,252.62,/.,_ >:< Cra\vford 2", Ross 15, /.J : Buter 52, Jackson 12, Bemont 6, Mahoning 31, co Sandusky 7, Trumbu 61, '~ ~Jyandot : Miami 13, Meigs 3, Seneca 7' '.. 1 Portage 25, Pike 2, Monroe 1, Union 9, " J.:. Wayne !. (Canton) Stark 56, Pauding 2, Prebe 3, Nobe :! Deaware 9, '. J Adams 1, Athens 2, ~ ' ~~i Homes 1, Coshocton 4, Putnam 3, Greene 12, Hardin 12, Fayette 1, ~L 09 Tuscara\vas 4, Medina 6, Scioto 9, Wood 3, , Washington 3, Mocking Guernsey 5, : J Fairfied 5, ~..(. ~~!. Laurence 18, Hamiton 242, , ,. Harrison ~ "1 -. \ Cark 14,735~ Futon 2, Montgomery 80, ;1,1 " Wiiams, Lucas 103, Frankin 134, "

32 APPENDX B COUNTY AMOUNT of ATTORNEYS ' FEES NO. CASES COST PER CASE ~~ J J 7.j ;j,. tjefiance Lorain Marion Van i Jert Muskingum Highand Ga 11 ia Carro Champaign Logan Licking Cinton Ashtabua Huron Jefferson Ashand Warren Pickaway Morgan Cuyahoga Henry Coumbiana Oi~ake Brown Augaize Cermont Erie Aen Madison Mercer Perry Sheby Morrow $ 2, , , , , , , , , , , , n, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $ / 1' , ' s. oo :~ 1,]!.

33

34 u.) ~ 1973?>.fa rch Nov Sept Ashtaboa County P.ibJic De fe ride_r 22, 000 Caremont Pubic Defender 20,625 Miami Pubic Defender Project 31, 12 9 Portage County Pubic Defender 40, 000 Tuscarawas (incudes Harrison, Carro County 54, 000 Capito.Law Schoo 30,.000 Pris on Project 211 cases - no breakdown est. 200 cases per year 6 mos = 171 cases handed misc. + juvenie represents a fe., JUV., misd. 6 mos. = 80 cases f t : f j t! f. t. ~- t j. t L.. i;-. '. f... r f