American Constitution Society

Skip to content



ACS Issue Briefs

From Error Toward Quality: A Federal Role in Support of Criminal Process


James M. Doyle

Mon, 07/26/2010

ACS is pleased to distribute “From Error Toward Quality: A Federal Role in Support of Criminal Process,”, an Issue Brief by James M. Doyle. Mr. Doyle is a lawyer in private practice with the Boston law firm of Carney & Bassil and the former head of the Public Defender Division of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services, which is the statewide public defender agency.

 

Mr. Doyle begins his Issue Brief by observing that “[c]ontemporary medicine is experiencing a vibrant quality reform movement born in the aftermath of horrific reports of fatal medical errors.” Based on the reform experience in medicine, which is a team-oriented effort built on learning from routine human errors to improve practices and “prevent those inevitable errors from ripening into tragedies,” he sees an opportunity for the federal government to “catalyze the willingness of criminal justice practitioners and stakeholders to learn from their own mistakes . . . and lay the groundwork for a continuous quality improvement initiative in America’s criminal justice systems.” With the federal government’s help in designing a common template for assessing errors in the system, serving as a clearinghouse for collecting and sharing the analyses of errors performed at the local level, and providing other modest technical and financial support, Mr. Doyle believes that this effort could “set in motion a cultural shift that improves criminal justice, not by imposing top-down federal micro-management, but by exploiting the talents and insights of local systems’ frontline practitioners.” He also believes that it could “change a culture to one that routinely, every day, concentrates on improving the reliability of the criminal process for the victims, the accused, and the public.”

 

Mr. Doyle’s Issue Brief is the second in a series that ACS will be publishing focused on ideas about a possible role that the federal government can play in improving indigent defense systems in states around the country. Attorney General Eric Holder, Congress, and many other federal policymakers have taken notice of the crisis in indigent defense that has existed since 1963 when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that each state has an obligation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide a criminal defendant with an attorney when he or she cannot afford one, and they have specifically identified reform of the system as a priority. Mr. Doyle’s systemic approach to criminal justice reform, which he believes will help identify problems that undermine compliance with the Sixth Amendment, offers another recommendation as to what the U.S. Department of Justice, Congress, and other parts of the federal government do to help bring about reform.

 

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

AttachmentSize
ACS Issue Brief - Doyle - From Error Toward Quality.pdf245.43 KB

A Legislative Approach to Indigent Defense Reform


Cara H. Drinan

Tue, 07/13/2010

ACS is pleased to distribute “A Legislative Approach to Indigent Defense Reform”, an Issue Brief by Cara H. Drinan, Assistant Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. Nearly every person who has observed the criminal justice system in action has seen that there are serious problems with providing representation to poor people accused of crimes. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that each state has an obligation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide a criminal defendant with an attorney when he or she cannot afford one. Since then, even the best indigent defense systems have been overburdened, underfunded, and faced a host of other problems that undermine the ability of attorneys to zealously and ethically represent their clients. Attorney General Eric Holder, Congress, and many other federal policymakers have taken notice of this crisis in indigent defense and specifically identified reform of the system as a priority. But what can the U.S. Department of Justice, Congress, and other parts of the federal government do to help bring about reform? Professor Drinan’s Issue Brief is the first in a series that ACS will be publishing focused on ideas about a possible federal role in improving indigent defense systems in states around the country.

 

In her Issue Brief, Professor Drinan proposes a piece of legislation that would allow federal courts to hear claims alleging that a state has systemically violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Some lawsuits like this have made progress recently in state courts in New York and Michigan, but suits of this type are still relatively rare and may not be feasible in every state. Professor Drinan argues that “[i]ndigent defense reform advocates need an opportunity to bring systemic indigent defense challenges . . . in the federal courts – courts that have traditionally been a refuge for victims of state constitutional violations.” She discusses current obstacles to federal court challenges, and why legislation like what she proposes is necessary and appropriate to make such suits possible. Professor Drinan proposes specific statutory language and discusses how it achieves several important goals, such as clearly affirming each state’s obligation under Gideon, taking full account of relevant Supreme Court precedent, clearly delineating limits on the proper parties to such a lawsuit, and enabling appropriate remedies. She also addresses several likely concerns that critics may raise about a proposal like hers, and concludes that “[g]iven the national crisis in indigent defense services, bold, timely action like the legislation that I propose in this Issue Brief is required and more than justified. Congress should consider enacting this or similar legislation soon, and the Attorney General should push for its passage.”

 

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

AttachmentSize
ACS Issue Brief - Drinan Indigent Def Reform.pdf268.5 KB

About Issue Briefs

In order to inform law and policy discourse on a wide variety of topics, ACS regularly distributes Issue Briefs from experts in various legal fields. These papers, usually 10-20 pages, are widely distributed and written in terms accessible to legal professionals, policymakers, and the general public. Anyone interested in writing an Issue Brief should contact C21(at)ACSLaw.org.

Disorderly (mis)Conduct: The Problem with "Contempt of Cop" Arrests


Christy E. Lopez

Mon, 06/07/2010

ACS is pleased to distribute “Disorderly (mis)Conduct: The Problem with ‘Contempt of Cop’ Arrests”, an Issue Brief by Christy E. Lopez, a civil rights attorney with a practice focusing on police and criminal justice reform. Almost a year ago, the issue of "contempt of cop" arrests was thrust into the national news when Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested by Cambridge Police Department Sergeant James Crowley. Sergeant Crowley was responding to a 911 caller who had reported a burglary in progress at Professor Gates's home, which is where the two encountered each other. As the events unfolded - Crowley's investigation of the burglary call and Gates's response to the Crowley's questions and actions - the situation escalated, and led to Sergeant Crowley arresting Professor Gates for disorderly conduct in the middle of the day just outside the front door to his house. The charges were later dropped, and after President Obama waded into the whole affair by saying that he thought the police acted "stupidly," the President later hosted a "beer summit" with both Gates and Crowley at the White House to help resolve the situation.

 

Ms. Lopez argues that "Sergeant Crowley's decision to arrest Professor Gates may or may not have been stupid. It may or may not have been consistent with Cambridge Police Department policy. But, if the facts are as Crowley asserted in his arrest report, the arrest was unlawful." She describes the law, and contends that, however loud, rude, or obnoxious Gates was, his behavior "falls squarely in the realm of speech protected by the First Amendment," and he should not have been arrested. Ms. Lopez continues that, "[d]espite its illegality, the arrest of Professor Gates was not unusual. This scenario - an individual being arrested after responding obstreperously to perceived police misconduct - is one that plays out routinely across the United States, albeit without the Ivy League backdrop or culminating in conflict-resolution-through-beer."

 

In this Issue Brief, Ms. Lopez asserts that there is "widespread misunderstanding of police authority to arrest individuals who passively or verbally defy them" and that there is "abundant evidence that police overuse disorderly conduct and similar statutes to arrest people who 'disrespect' them or express disagreement with their actions." She believes that "abusive arrests cause direct and significant harm to those arrested and, more generally, undermine the appropriate balance between police authority and individual prerogative to question the exercise of that authority." To fully explore this issue, Ms. Lopez discusses the relevant law governing these types of arrests, and several investigations of problems in police departments around the country. She then details her reasons for asserting that "the harm caused by improper arrests and threats of arrest for disorderly conduct far outweighs the justification given by some police and pundits for the aggressive (overly-aggressive, some would say) use of these statutes," and concludes by proposing "a roadmap for legislators, advocates, law enforcement officials, and others seeking to address this problem."

 

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

Citizens United: The Aftermath


Monica Youn

Thu, 06/03/2010

ACS is pleased to distribute Citizens United: The Aftermath.”, an Issue Brief by Monica Youn, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. In this Issue Brief, Ms. Youn examines the political impact of the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and outlines potential responses that, the author contends, "would buttress existing campaign finance safeguards from further attacks and mitigate some of the harmful effects of [the decision]." In Citizens United, the Court held that limitations on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violate the First Amendment, striking down a significant portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Ms. Youn contends that the 5-4 decision represents an undermining of precedent with potentially grave consequences:

 

"By holding, for the first time, that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to engage in political spending as people, the Supreme Court re-ordered the priorities in our democracy -- placing special interest dollars at the center of our democracy, and displacing the rightful role of voters. By holding, for the first time, that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to engage in political spending as people, the Supreme Court re-ordered the priorities in our democracy-placing special interest dollars at the center of our democracy, and displacing the rightful role of voters."

 

Ms. Youn proposes a variety of responses to the decision. In the short term, the author recommends a legislative response that includes enactment of stop-gap measures (such as shareholder consent and increased corporate disclosure requirements) and larger structural reforms (such as public financing and voter registration modernization). However, in the longer term, Ms. Youn recommends closer attention to the Judiciary and judicial nominations:

 

"[I]n the long term, reclaiming the First Amendment for the voters will be the best weapon against those who seek to use the First Amendment for the good of the few, rather than for the many. Judges whose conception of the First Amendment takes account of the interests of voters can speed this process. As the nation seeks a successor to Justice Stevens, we hope that his successor advances a vision of a democratic, deliberative, and voter-centric First Amendment."

 

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief



Close