ReportWire

Tag: public defender

  • Public defenders office hires new attorneys with state funding

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state’s public defender office is lawyering up after getting an infusion of state money aimed at addressing a shortage of attorneys, which has led to the release of criminal suspects who lack legal representation.

    In a report to legislative leaders, the Committee for Public Counsel Services said the agency is undertaking the largest staffing expansion in its history to provide representation for indigent clients “while ensuring that attorneys and support staff are adequately supervised, trained, and retained.”


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmr!r$ r9:67 r@F?D6= p?E9@?J q6?656EE: D2:5 E96 EH@J62C 6IA2?D:@? A=2? H:== C6DF=E 😕 2 “EC2?D7@C>2E:@?2= :?G6DE>6?E 😕 E96 AF3=:4 5676?D6 DJDE6>” E92E 92D DECF88=65 7@C J62CD E@ 2EEC24E 2?5 C6E2:? 2EE@C?6JD E@ C6AC6D6?E 5676?52?ED H9@ 42?’E 277@C5 C6AC6D6?E2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“xE AC@G:56D ?@E @?=J 2 D:8?:7:42?E ?F>36C @7 255:E:@?2= 2EE@C?6JD 3FE 2=D@ E96 DFA6CG:D@CJ[ :?G6DE:82E:G6[ 2?5 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 :?7C2DECF4EFC6 E@ DFDE2:? 2 >@56C? 2?5 67764E:G6 :?5:86?E 5676?D6 AC24E:46[” q6?656EE: HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm“qJ DECF4EFC:?8 8C@HE9 2C@F?5 AC@A@CE:@?2= DE277:?8 C2E:@D 2?5 :?G6DE:?8 😕 EC2:?:?8[ r!r$ 😀 96=A:?8 E@ 3F:=5 2 DFDE2:?23=6 DJDE6> 56D:8?65 7@C =@?8E6C> DE23:=:EJ 2?5 =@?8E6C> :>A24E 7@C E96 4@>>F?:E:6D H6 D6CG6[” 96 25565]k^Am

    kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J D:8?65 2 DFAA=6>6?E2= 3F586E 😕 pF8FDE E92E AC@G:56D E96 DE2E6’D AF3=:4 5676?56C 286?4J H:E9 2?@E96C Sc_ >:==:@? 😕 7F?5:?8 E@ 9:C6 ba_ 2EE@C?6JD @G6C E96 ?6IE D6G6C2= J62CD]k^Am

    kAmw62=6J’D >@G6 H2D 2:>65 2E 62D:?8 2 H@C< DE@AA286 3J AF3=:4 5676?56CD E92E 3682? 😕 |2J[ H96? AC:G2E6 2EE@C?6JD H9@ 2C6 A2:5 3J E96 DE2E6 E@ C6AC6D6?E :?5:86?E 5676?52?ED DE@AA65 E2<:?8 @? ?6H 42D6D[ 4:E:?8 =@H H286D 2?5 @E96C 8C:6G2?46D]k^Am

    kAmq6?656EE: D2:5 7@==@H:?8 A2DD286 @7 E96 3:== r!r$ 92D :?4C62D65 E96 ?F>36C @7 ?6H 2EE@C?6JD E@ bg E9:D 72==[ FA 7C@> E96 a_ ?6H =2HJ6CD :E 925 @C:8:?2==J A=2??65 E@ 3C:?8 @?E@ :ED DE277]k^Am

    kAm“}62C=J g_ A6C46?E @7 E96D6 6IA2?D:@? 9:C6D 2C6 36:?8 2DD:8?65 E@ @77:46D 😕 |:55=6D6I 2?5 $F77@=< 4@F?E:6D[ H9:49 2C6 2>@?8 E96 >@DE :>A24E65 2C62D 2?5 H96C6 E96 ?665 7@C 4@F?D6= 😀 >@DE FC86?E[” 96 HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm“%96 C6>2:?56C @7 9:C6D 2C6 36:?8 2DD:8?65 E@ @E96C 9:89 G@=F>6 2?5 :>A24E65 4@F?E:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 q2C?DE23=6 2?5 (@C46DE6C[ E@ 6?DFC6 3C@256C DE2E6H:56 4@G6C286 😕 C68:@?D 724:?8 9:896C 56>2?5 2?5 42A24:EJ 492==6?86D[” q6?656EE: 25565]k^Am

    kAm}6IE J62C[ E96 286?4J D2:5 :E A=2?D E@ 9:C6 2?5 EC2:? 2E =62DE `__ ?6H 2EE@C?6JD E@ C6AC6D6?E :?5:86?E 4=:6?ED — E96 =2C86DE 4=2DD 😕 E96 286?4J’D 9:DE@CJ — 2?5 92D 366? 4@?5F4E:?8 @FEC6249 E@ =2H D49@@=D 😕 E96 }6H t?8=2?5 C68:@?]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Public defender’s office seeks removal of Trump’s top federal prosecutor in L.A.

    [ad_1]

    The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles filed a motion Friday to disqualify acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, arguing that the Trump administration’s pick to serve as the top federal prosecutor in Southern California is unlawfully occupying his post.

    Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April, and his term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term another nine months without any confirmation process.

    The federal public defender’s office filed a motion seeking to dismiss an indictment against their client and to disqualify Essayli and attorneys working under him “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”

    The defendant, Jaime Ramirez, was indicted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    In a 63-page motion filed in Ramirez’s case, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, argued that the Trump administration circumvented limitations that Congress has imposed on temporary service in key offices, including U.S. attorneys.

    Essayli’s term was supposed to expire on July 29. At that point the White House had not formally nominated him before the U.S. Senate, and local federal judges had taken no action to confirm Essayli, or anyone else, to the position. At the eleventh hour, the White House named Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, allowing him to hold the post for 210 more days without confirmation hearings.

    Essayli “was not lawfully acting as the United States Attorney in any capacity” on Aug. 13, when the government obtained the indictment against Ramirez, the deputy federal public defenders wrote in their motion. “And he has no such lawful authority today.”

    The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

    In their motion, Flynn and Sarsour pointed out that the Trump administration has used similar strategies to keep political allies in power in U.S. attorney’s offices in New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico and the Northern District of New York. But legal challenges are mounting. Last week, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying her seat in New Jersey since early July, although that order was put on hold pending appeal.

    Habba was nominated for the post earlier this year but did not receive Senate or judicial confirmation. Instead, local federal judges chose Desiree Leigh Grace, a veteran Republican prosecutor within the office, to replace Habba. Bondi responded by firing Grace and naming Habba acting U.S. attorney, sparking confusion over who actually held the post and all but paralyzing the federal criminal court system in the Garden State.

    On Tuesday, the federal public defender’s office in Nevada filed a motion to do one of two things: dismiss an indictment that acting U.S. Atty. Sigal Chattah brought against one of its clients, or disqualify the U.S. attorney’s office entirely. The 59-page motion specifically challenged Chattah, stating that she is not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney.

    Echoing Judge Matthew W. Brann’s ruling on Habba, the Nevada public defenders argued that Chattah was not first an assistant U.S. attorney, as federal law required when the U.S. attorney seat became vacant.

    The motion also argues that Chattah was illegally kept in office past the 120-day limit and can’t exercise the powers of the office without Senate confirmation.

    “The Court should dismiss the indictment; at a minimum, it should disqualify Ms. Chattah from this prosecution, as well as attorneys operating under her direction; and the judges of this district should exercise their authority to appoint a proper interim U.S. Attorney,” the Nevada motion read.

    Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to urge him not to appoint her once her term expired. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

    The letter called Chattah’s interim appointment “a troubling pattern by the Trump administration of bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming U.S. Attorneys.”

    According to the letter, as of July, Trump had submitted formal nominations for only nine of his administration’s 37 interim appointees.

    “If this pattern persists, by late fall, more than one-third of the 93 U.S. Attorneys will have evaded Senate review this year alone,” the letter read. “Yet, the constitutional role of the Senate is vital regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys.”

    Each of Trump’s controversial picks has demonstrated fealty to the president. Chattah has long upheld Trump’s lie that he actually won the 2020 election. Habba — who once served as Trump’s personal attorney and has no prosecutorial experience — promised to turn New Jersey “red,” breaking with longstanding norms of federal prosecutors eschewing partisan politics. She has also filed criminal charges against two Democratic lawmakers in the state over scuffles with immigration officers at a Newark detention facility.

    Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often aping the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting in the face of his belligerent, scream-first management style.

    A Times investigation last month found that his aggressive pursuit of charges against people protesting immigration enforcement in Southern California has led to weak cases being rejected again and again by grand juries. A number of others have been dismissed.

    Even if Trump had formally nominated him to serve a full term as U.S. attorney, it is unlikely he would have ever appeared on the Senate floor. California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, both Democrats, are both opposed to Essayli’s appointment and could have derailed any nomination by withholding what is known as their “blue slip,” or acknowledgment of support for a nominee.

    The procedural blockades have drawn Trump’s ire, and the president has challenged Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to do away with honoring the blue slip tradition. Grassley has held firm, but Trump has threatened litigation.

    Legal experts called the White House’s move to keep Essayli in office unprecedented last month, and warned it could affect criminal cases.

    “These laws have never been used, as far as I can see, to bypass the Senate confirmation process or the judicial one,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who now serves as a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told The Times last month. “The most serious consequences are if you’re going to end up with indictments that are not valid because they weren’t signed by a lawful U.S. attorney.”

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia, James Queally

    Source link

  • Wayne County public defender sues judges for alleged bias against lower-income defendants

    Wayne County public defender sues judges for alleged bias against lower-income defendants

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Attorney Sundus Jaber filed a whistleblower lawsuit against 35th District Court over the treatment of her indigent clients.

    A young public defender claims in a federal lawsuit that she was pushed out of her job at 35th District Court in Plymouth for passionately fighting on behalf of her lower-income clients.

    Sundus K. Jaber filed a whistleblower lawsuit in U.S. District Court in late March, claiming she was prevented from representing indigent defendants in criminal cases in Judge James Plakas’s courtroom in retaliation for vigorously defending her clients.

    Jaber, a Muslim who wears a hijab, says she was mistreated and harassed by judges and their staff at the expense of her clients.

    On her first day as a public defender, Judge Ronald Lowe advised Jaber that she would be removed if she fights too much on behalf of her clients, saying she “needs to understand that 95% of the people she will represent are guilty,” according to the lawsuit.

    Lowe then said, “If you contest more than 5% of cases, we will boot you out of here,” the suit alleges.

    Lowe’s alleged remarks fly in the face of the 6th Amendment, which entitles criminal defendants to “effective assistance of counsel,” regardless of their income.

    “The ability of a person charged in the criminal system to pay for counsel should not dictate whether they receive constitutionally-sound representation that is free from interference by the judiciary,” the lawsuit states.

    Jaber, who became a licensed attorney in 2020, says the experience has been eye-opening and disheartening, but she won’t be deterred.

    “It is hard to be a young lawyer trying to build her skills and reputation, and realizing how much power a judge has to influence your career and standing in the legal community,” Jaber tells Metro Times. “It has been difficult to stay working under these conditions and worry about whether my belief in providing a vigorous defense will hurt my career. But I know I’m doing the right thing.”

    Numerous studies nationwide have shown that public defenders grapple with overwhelming caseloads, hindering their ability to offer adequate legal support to individuals charged with crimes.

    After Jaber launched complaints that her indigent defendants were mistreated at the hands of Plakas, Lowe, and court staff, the judges asked for her removal.

    Jaber filed her complaints with the Regional Managed Assigned Counsel Office (RMACO), which is a nonprofit that assigns public defenders to district courts in Wayne County. According to the suit, RMACO Director Teresa Patton, who originally recruited Jaber to serve as one of the two lead public defenders for the 35th District Court, didn’t take her complaints seriously and refused to meet with Jaber after she retained counsel.

    On Feb. 13, Patton notified Jaber that she could only represent indigent clients in front of Judge Michael J. Gerou, one of three judges for the 35th District Court. The move cut “her workload and thus her income by half,” the lawsuit states.

    Patton warned Jaber that if she filed a lawsuit over the issue, she would be removed entirely from the court system.

    The lawsuit alleges the judges and RMACO violated her First Amendment Rights, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act.

    Jaber says her experience demonstrates the systematic mistreatment of indigent defendants at 35th District Court, which has a reputation among criminal defense attorneys of being unfair to defendants, especially those who cannot afford to hire their own attorneys.

    “Wayne County has a difficult time recruiting a criminal defense attorney to accept appointments for indigent defendants at the 35th District Court because of the Court’s reputation among the bar as being generally inhospitable to public defenders who vigorously defend cases and generally allowing its staff to be extremely and inappropriately hostile,” the suit alleges.

    Four defense attorneys told Metro Times on condition of anonymity that they try to avoid the 35 District Court because their clients often receive unfair treatment.

    “It is hard enough to be a defendant in this justice system, and I always wonder if you can ever get a fair shake,” Jaber says. “When a court and its personnel treat people like this, I know it makes defendants lose hope and faith that the outcome is unfair. Defendants represented by someone who won’t put the work into their defense can face potential life-changing consequences with longer loss of liberty or more serious convictions that affect their future, even at the district court level.”

    Metro Times couldn’t reach the 35th Circuit judges or RMACO for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • DNA, jail calls, financial records: Md. prosecutors make case in 2010 murder of AU professor – WTOP News

    DNA, jail calls, financial records: Md. prosecutors make case in 2010 murder of AU professor – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    When Jorge Rueda Landeros goes on trial for killing American University professor Sue Ann Marcum, it will be almost 15 years after Montgomery County prosecutors say he beat and asphyxiated her at her home in Bethesda, Maryland.

    When Jorge Rueda Landeros goes on trial for killing American University professor Sue Ann Marcum, it will be almost 15 years after Montgomery County prosecutors say he beat and asphyxiated her at her home in Bethesda, Maryland.

    Rueda Landeros is charged with first-degree murder in Marcum’s October 2010 death. He spent 12 years on the FBI’s “Most Wanted List” before he was arrested in Guadalajara, Mexico, in December 2022 and extradited to the United States.

    Dressed in a green short-sleeved jail shirt over a long-sleeved sweatshirt, Rueda Landeros sat quietly between his public defenders during a Friday status hearing in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

    After being indicted in August 2023, Rueda Landeros has been scheduled to go on trial in May of this year. However, on Friday, Rueda Landeros’s defense team requested — and was granted — a trial postponement, as one of his attorneys is leaving the public defender’s office.

    Judge Rachel McGuckian set jury selection for Jan. 21, 2025, for what both sides expect will be a five-day jury trial.

    Court documents shed light on prosecution’s case against Rueda Landeros

    Shortly after his extradition, prosecutors and police provided initial details of what led them to Rueda Landeros — and why it took 12 years to make an arrest.

    According to a July 2023 news conference, police said Rueda Landeros’s DNA matched DNA recovered from items in Marcum’s house, including the weapon police believe was used to bludgeon her and scrapings from under her fingernails.

    Recent filings provide a more specific outline of the evidence Montgomery County prosecutors plan to present and the expert witnesses who could testify.

    During the discovery process, prosecutors provided the defense with photos, audio and video interviews, jail call recordings, video surveillance and interactive brokerage reports.

    Prosecutors named a forensic scientist with the county police department to testify about both Marcum’s and Rueda Landeros’s DNA being found on shot glasses, as well as DNA found under Marcum’s fingernails.

    According to charging documents in the case, the scene of Marcum’s killing initially bore signs of a robbery. A rear window appeared to have been pried open, and the house was partially ransacked. However, several expensive items were left behind and investigators said evidence of a struggle indicated Marcum possibly knew her attacker.

    Suspicion eventually landed on Rueda Landeros, a yoga instructor and Spanish teacher who developed a personal and financial relationship with Marcum sometime in the mid-2000s. Police have not detailed exactly how the two knew each other.

    According to police, Rueda Landeros was the sole beneficiary of a $500,000 life insurance policy on Marcum, and the two also shared a joint investment fund.

    In addition, a 1099 form in Marcum’s name from 2008 listed proceeds of over $100 million to the fund, which investigators believed to be “very unusual” given her occupation as a university professor, according to the charging documents.

    Police declined to say during the 2023 news conference whether the fund actually had $100 million in it or if the tax form was bogus.

    The new expert witness notification specifies a forensic accountant who reviewed the financial records of Marcum and Rueda Landeros and drafted a report on his conclusions.

    A fingerprint analyst is set to testify about latent prints found in Marcum’s home on Massachusetts Avenue, located between Goldsboro Road and Westmoreland Circle, on the border with D.C.

    Rueda Landeros has maintained his innocence.

    “Mr. Rueda Landeros is innocent, has asserted his innocence before, and continues to today. We look forward to a trial in a courtroom in this case,” Michael Beach, the Montgomery County district public defender, said in an email to WTOP shortly after Rueda Landeros was extradited.

    WTOP’s Jack Moore contributed to this report. 

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Neal Augenstein

    Source link

  • Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    [ad_1]

    The holidays can be a challenging time. It’s an especially challenging time for detainees at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center.

    This wind-scoured private prison lurks on the western boundary of the Mojave Desert, about 10 miles from Victorville. With a built-in immigration court, it’s something of a one-stop deportation shop.

    Sundays are a busy day here. The waiting room at the Desert View Annex is crowded with families. Parents. Grandparents. More children than you would expect. The visitors are nervous, if not resigned.

    A kindly man with a Sinaloan accent makes small talk with me while we wait.

    “You here to visit family?”

    “No. A client.”

    “Lawyer?”

    “Yes, in a public defender’s office.”

    “You do immigration law?”

    “Not really. I’m here to fix the wrongful conviction that took away my client’s green card and got him put in deportation.”

    He asks for my card. “My son has a conviction like that too. Can you talk to him?”

    The staff here are pleasant, kind. A guard in a blue polo shirt exchanges the IDs of people in the waiting room for visitors’ badges. Another walks us through a series of imposing steel doors to a visiting room. Some Christmas ornaments hang from the ceiling. Clumps of plastic furniture line the periphery. A play area for children sits on the far wall. A dozen men in red and orange jumpsuits greet the arrivals.

    It is palpably sad. All but one or two of these men will be deported; all but one or two of these families will be missing a son or husband or father during the holidays.

    A friendly guard with perfect fake eyelashes places me in a private attorney room. I hand her a stack of papers for my client Jose. Across the reinforced glass, tears well in his eyes as he signs the documents mending the legal errors that landed him here.

    Jose is in his late 50s. Been in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident since he was 6 months old. His entire family is here. He has five adult children. Six grandchildren. Elderly parents. Owns a small business. Has no contact with his country of his birth.

    In the 1990s, he pleaded guilty to possession of less than a gram of cocaine. His lawyer never asked about his immigration status, nor told him the conviction would result in him losing his green card and being placed in deportation. Not understanding the immigration consequences, he pleaded guilty. He attended some drug classes and when the judge said “case dismissed,” he thought the matter was closed. But a “dismissed” case is still a federal controlled substances conviction.

    Three decades later, Jose was arrested by men in windbreakers and placed in deportation proceedings.

    Last Monday, I was in court for him, and a judge signed an order vacating the conviction because it violated his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. On Tuesday, Jose’s immigration attorney filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings with the judge’s order attached. With no criminal conviction to trigger deportation grounds, Jose made it home to watch his grandkids tear into presents.

    He was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. Had his conviction come from other counties in California, the public defender’s offices in those counties would very likely have refused to take his case, despite having been allocated money to do so.

    In 2021, the California Board of State and Community Corrections created the Public Defense Pilot Program, which provided funds so that public defender’s offices could represent clients under several statutes, including Penal Code §1473.7. This law allows defendants to vacate criminal convictions if newly discovered evidence appears; if the conviction was obtained on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin; or if it’s legally invalid because the person did not understand and appreciate the immigration consequences.

    Although the other statutes in the pilot program also require a public defender’s office to open old cases where, almost always, mistakes of some kind will be found, many defender’s offices resist taking on cases involving immigrants because of workloads or concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

    In my office in Ventura County, I was transferred from felony trials to the immigration unit to help as many eligible people as possible. Although this decision significantly increased the office’s workload, the positive results are tangible. In 2023, we prepared more than 200 §1473.7 cases on behalf of 93 immigrants like Jose.

    If every public defender’s office in the state could make indigent representation under this statute a priority, we would see more justice and many more immigrants, who’ve been unfairly swept up, have an increased opportunity to make it home to their families for the holidays and in the coming year.

    Michael Albers is a senior deputy public defender in the Ventura County Public Defender’s Office.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Albers

    Source link