CRIMINAL JUSTICE
IN THE AREA OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS WELL, OUR EFFORTS ARE FULLY FOCUSED ON WAYS, old
and new, to facilitate the delivery of justice. Our criminal and family dockets
together account for half of our caseloads.

COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES
I begin with the interim findings of the Commission on the Future of Indigent
Defense Services, co-chaired by the Honorable Burton Roberts, former Administrative
Judge of Bronx County, and Professor William Hellerstein of Brooklyn Law School.
While the Commission’s final report awaits the completion of comprehensive data
collection, it is not too soon to express our profound thanks to the distinguished
members of the bench and bar who as members of this Commission have dedicated
themselves to thinking, and rethinking, our system for providing the constitutionally
guaranteed indigent defense.

Having studied published materials and gathered information from scores of
knowledgeable witnesses, the Commission has convincingly concluded that the existing
system needs overhaul—that it is indeed not a system at all but rather a “multiplicity of
modalities, all of which are sanctioned by the statutory framework which New York
State adopted in 1965 when it enacted Article 18-B of the County Law.” Tracing the
history of the patchwork scheme—from its very outset lacking essential standards and
uniformity—the report demonstrates the utter inadequacy of the plan. I have not seen
the word “crisis” so often, or so uniformly, echoed by all of the sources, whether
referring to the unavailability of counsel in Town and Village Courts, or the lack of
uniform standards for determining eligibility, or the counties’ efforts to safeguard
county dollars, or the disparity with prosecutors, or the lack of attorney-client contact,
or the particular implications for communities of color. One defender told the
Commission that as part of his contract with the locality he was directed to waive certain
rights of his clients. Another told of being reprimanded for hiring an expert in a
homicide case rather than relying on the prosecution’s expert. Virtually all institutional
defenders described excessive caseloads and a lack of resources like investigators or
interpreters. Some could not even afford basic office supplies.

The Commission has outlined a State-funded system centered around an Indigent
Defense Commission that will oversee the quality and delivery of indigent defense
services. And it reached this recommendation unanimously. The Indigent Defense
Commission would be a permanent body that appoints a Chief Defender for the State
as well as regional defenders, who together would have day-to-day responsibility to
ensure the delivery of quality defense services. The Indigent Defense Commission
would determine whether existing defenders provide an appropriate level of service, or
whether new regional defender offices should be established in particular parts of the
State. All defender offices would be supervised by the Indigent Defense Commission,
which will develop and enforce Statewide standards.

We eagerly await the final report, promised for Spring 2006—just around the
corner—which will flesh out all of the findings and recommendations, and we hope we
can move forward to redress a situation that cries out for reform.