id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-22384	Lucas, Lauren Sudeall	Public Defense Litigation: An Overview	2018	21	.pdf	application/pdf	9276	506	57	The Hurrell-Harring plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of the state and federal constitution (based on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments).58 Alleged in the case were multiple systemic deficiencies, including, among others: incoherent or excessively restrictive client eligibility standards; no written hiring and performance standards or meaningful systems for attorney supervision and monitoring; lack of adequate attorney training; a lack of resources for support staff, appropriate investigations and expert services; no attorney caseload or workload standards; an absence of consistent representation of each client by one lawyer; a lack of independence from the judiciary, the prosecutorial function, and political authorities; and inadequate resources and compensation for public defense service providers, especially as compared to their prosecutorial counterparts.59 As a result of such deficiencies, the plaintiffs alleged, many public defense providers often failed to: provide representation for indigent defendants at all critical stages of the criminal justice process, especially arraignments where bail determinations are made; meet or consult with clients prior to critical stages in their criminal proceedings; investigate adequately the charges against their clients or obtain investigators who can assist with case preparation and testify at trial; employ and consult with experts when necessary; file necessary pre-trial motions; or provide meaningful representation at trial and at sentencing.60 Thus, public defense counsel lacked the ability to “put the case against their clients to meaningful adversarial testing. The failure of public defense systems to provide adequate representation to indigent defendants is often caused by severe underfunding and has resulted in the chronic appointment of “incompetent or inexperienced” counsel; delays in the appointment of counsel and discontinuity of attorney representation; a lack of training and oversight for counsel representing indigent defendants; excessive public defender caseloads and understaffing of public defender offices; inadequate or nonexistent expert and investigative resources for defense counsel; and a lack of meaningful attorney- client contact.4 Many of these failings are described in more detail in other articles that are a part of this symposium.5 One response to these failings—as is often the case when constitutional violations are afoot—has been to challenge them in court.6 The focus of this short Article is on how the courts can address and have addressed the failings of * Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Access to Justice.	cache/inlawrev-22384.pdf	txt/inlawrev-22384.txt