Source: https://www.goldsteinhilley.com/attorney-testimonies/long-range-plan-federal-courts/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:24:58+00:00

Document:
The federal judiciary should act to restore and preserve its “core values” of equal justice, judicial independence, limited federal jurisdiction, judicial excellence, and accountability.
Federal criminal charges should be filed only in those instances in which state court prosecution is not appropriate — consistent with the core value of limited federal jurisdiction.
State courts should not have jurisdiction over federal crimes.
Congress should forego future and repeal current offenses that are inappropriate for federal prosecution — consistent with the core value of limited federal jurisdiction.
The district courts should decline jurisdiction of criminal cases where state jurisdiction is available and the federal interest is minimal.
Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes should be repealed and disparity eliminated.
Congress should fund the costs of federal legislation.
Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys should be paid the rate increases, including annual cost-of-living increases, required by statute but deferred by the Judicial Conference.
Training should be made available to panel attorneys, who should be subject to qualification standards.
A federal defender office should be established in each district.
Federal defender offices should not represent clients with adverse interests.
Representation of clients with adverse interests violates the rules of ethics.
It is essential to maintain substantial involvement of the private bar in the Criminal Justice Act system.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys (NACDL)(1) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts. We strongly support the concept of planning, to enable the federal courts to anticipate and act with respect to likely future opportunities and challenges, and to move toward a federal jurisprudence that is rational, predictable and coherent.
We are strongly supportive of the methodology employed — public participation is the essence of democratic government.
Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 describe an optimum federal criminal jurisprudence, and list Implementation Strategies for the legislative and executive branches to follow.
We agree wholeheartedly with the principle that federal criminal charges should be filed “only in those instances in which state court prosecution is not appropriate,” and that Congress should allocate criminal jurisdiction accordingly (Recommendation 1). While any definitions — including the “five types of offenses” discussed in the Proposed Long Range Plan — are subject to varied interpretation, proclaiming a goal of jurisdictional limitation is an important step in maintaining the judiciary’s “core values.” We also agree that Congress should revise the criminal code and remove offenses not appropriate for federal prosecution (Recommendation 2).
Recommendation 3, calling for Congress and the executive branch to work with the states to develop a policy to determine whether offenses should be prosecuted in the federal or state systems, includes Implementation Strategies in apparent conflict with Recommendations 1 and 2.
Authorizing concurrent jurisdiction over federal crimes, to be prosecuted by cross-designated Special Assistant U. S. Attorneys, in state court, with convicted defendants sentenced to federal prisons, would certainly result in a geometric increase in federal jurisdiction, in contradiction to the goal of limitation. While the Article III district court bench might expect some relief from ridding itself of the plethora of minor drug cases clogging the dockets, there would certainly be an initial explosion in writ and motion practice; the circuit courts would have to be greatly expanded to cope with the resultant contentions.
Moreover, the proposed increase in federal funding of state prosecutions (with or without a leap to concurrent jurisdiction) would represent a massive unfunded federal mandate — unless the right to counsel guarantee of the Sixth amendment, incorporated by the Fourteenth amendment,(3) receives a corollary appropriation. Recommendation 3 should be deleted, and replaced with a stronger Recommendation 4.
Professor Kenneth Culp Davis, in his exploration of prosecutorial discretion,(6) makes a strong case for reconsideration of the assumption that administrators of criminal justice, unlike all other administrators, are immune from basic, fundamental administrative due process.
Where law ends, discretion begins, and the exercise of discretion may mean either beneficence or tyranny, either justice or injustice, either reasonableness or arbitrariness.
The judiciary can review instances of challenged prosecutorial discretion and in case-by-case adjudications, set standards by which a prosecutor’s actions may be judged.
Consistent with standards developed by the Judicial Conference, authorize district courts to decline jurisdiction in . . . criminal cases where state [jurisdiction could be invoked] and the federal interest is minimal.
The NACDL strongly supports Recommendations 29 and 30. Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes have radically skewed the work of the Sentencing Commission, resulting in penalties for regulatory offenses (drugs) much stiffer than for property crimes, or even crimes against persons. Moreover, the disparity between federal sentences for some drugs (e.g., “crack” cocaine, marijuana plants) and other drugs indistinguishable in social harm (e.g., powder cocaine, harvested marijuana), and the disparity between state and federal sentencing (possible probation versus decades without parole, and now prison versus execution) is often arbitrary, freakish and bizarre.
The recommendations of Chapter 8 of the Proposed Long Range Plan are generally supported by the NACDL. We agree that Congress “should appropriate sufficient funds to accommodate the cost to the courts of the impact of new legislation” (Recommendation 54).
When new federal crimes are created wholesale, and executive department and agency budgets are increased, there must be a corresponding increase in judicial budgets, including the allocation for Defender Services. When Defender Services funding is, instead, decreased (as for fiscal year 1995), and Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys’ statutory cost-of-living increases are perennially stalled, those essential service providers suffer “an actual diminution of compensation,” far greater than the imposition on federal judges noted in Recommendation 55.
Specific to indigent defense, the Proposed Plan recommends establishing federal defender offices in all districts, qualification standards and training for private panel attorneys, and fair compensation for the panel attorneys. (Recommendations 88, 89) “At a minimum, adequate funding should be requested so that the Judicial Conference can adjust compensation rates up to the maximum amount authorized by law.” (Recommendation 89d; emphasis added.) The NACDL strongly endorses those Recommendations.
To control the heavy costs of the CJA system, protocols — including judicially approved guidelines — should be developed to enable federal defender organizations to represent more than one defendant in a multi-defendant case.
As noted above, the judiciary should require adherence to coherent prosecution policies intended to conserve scarce resources and preserve the federal courts’ core jurisdiction.
Third, the notion that federal defender offices can switch to multi- defendant “protocols” fails to consider the collegial, team-work nature of those offices, where concentrated talent and experience provides the maximum return on the budgetary investment, resulting in consistently high quality representation and promoting judicial economy.
Fourth, the assumption that conflict of interest jurisprudence can be readily overlooked is questionable. Finally, while establishing federal defender offices in all districts is laudable — and long overdue — taking the further step of appointing defender offices, rather than private panel attorneys, to represent co-defendants, risks thwarting the important goal of maintaining substantial participation by the private bar. These last two points bare close examination.
The Model Rule defines “firm” and explains the purpose of the rule: For purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the term “firm” includes lawyers in a private firm, and lawyers employed in the legal department of a corporation or other organization, or in a legal services organization.
The rule of imputed disqualification… gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be considered from the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially one lawyer for purposes of the rules governing loyalty to the client, or from the premise that each lawyer is vicariously bound by the obligation of loyalty owed by each lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated.
Federal courts have already declared that a “general trend of the law has been to limit the applicability of the vicarious disqualification rules to private organizations,” exempting prosecutors and, arguably, federal defender offices.(24) Further limitation contemplated by the Proposed Plan will likely accelerate the increasing tension between the federal courts and the states’ legal ethics systems,(25) while eroding federalism, comity and the policy goals of preserving and protecting the healthy participation of the private bar in the nation’s indigent defense system. Unless some overriding policy goal is identified — and potentially saving a few dollars is not sufficient — the recommendation that defender offices represent co- defendants should be rejected.
All lawyers, whether criminal practitioners or not, share in the responsibility of ensuring that the most visible legal institution in the Nation, the criminal justice system, is of the highest attainable quality. Increasingly, however, indigent defense in many cities is almost the exclusive responsibility of public defenders and a very small private bar.
The remainder of the trial bar is not fulfilling its obligation to participate through the representation of indigent defendants, and as a result, the shunning of criminal defense practice deprives the criminal justice system of a powerful voice for criminal justice reform, because the influential lawyers are unfamiliar with the working of the criminal justice system.
The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) requires a “substantial proportion” of appointments to the private bar.(28) “‘Substantial’ shall usually be defined as approximately 25 percent of the appointments under the CJA annually throughout the district.”(29) Such a combination maximizes the advantages of public defender organizations and private bar involvement, assuming adequate funding,(30) and should be preserved.
The Standards were born in a climate of deep concern over the burgeoning problems of crime and the correlative crises in our courts occasioned by overwhelming caseloads, recidivism and a seeming incapacity of the system to respond to the challenges of the Sixties.
To counter that trend, and protect its core functions, the federal judiciary “must resist even well-intentioned legislation that would chill the capacity of the judge to render impartial justice.”(32) The initial draft of the Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts is an admirable, ambitious beginning down the long road back from the brink of chaos. With the exceptions here noted, the NACDL supports the concept and the direction of the work of the Committee on Long Range Planning.
1. The NACDL is a nonprofit, national organization which includes within its membership over 8,500 attorneys actively engaged in defending criminal prosecutions. In addition, we are affiliated with over 68 state and local criminal defense organizations with which we work cooperatively on issues of common concern. Altogether, we speak for more than 20,000 criminal defense lawyers nationwide. The mission of the NACDL, as defined in its by-laws, includes: preserving the adversary system of justice; maintaining and fostering independent and able criminal defense lawyers; and insuring justice and due process to persons accused of crime.
2. The NACDL joins in (and so avoids repeating) the Recommendations of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Statement of H. Scott Wallace, December 9, 1994. In particular, we endorse NLADA’s positions on elimination of racial disparity, appointed counsel independence, and the importance of continuing the Legal Services Corporation.
3. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
4. See, e.g., Department of Justice Manual (Prentice Hall), § 9-101.200 (consider “the district court’s backlog of cases” in deciding whether to refer drug cases to local prosecutor); § 9-102.001 (addicts “should receive treatment rather than mere punishment,” referencing the dormant Narcotic Rehabilitation Act); Ch. 23A, § 220 (decline prosecution where “[n]o substantial federal interest would be served”).
6. DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY (1969).
7. Id., at 3-4. See also K. Davis, DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE IN EUROPE AND AMERICA (1976); L. Fuller, Positivism and Fidelity to Law — a Reply to Professor Hart, 71 HARV L REV 630, 636 (1958) (on the affinity of “coherence and goodness. . . . When men are compelled to explain and justify their decisions, the effect will generally be to pull those decisions toward goodness, by whatever standards of goodness there are”). The broader notion that legitimate discretion exists only within the context of standards and accountability is discussed in R. Dworkin, TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY, 31 (1977).
8. Vorenberg, Narrowing the Discretion of Criminal Justice Officials, 1976 Duke L J 651, 652 (1976).
9. Silberman, CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 283 (1978).
10. Lezak and Leonard, The Prosecutor’s Discretion: Out of the Closet – Not Out of Control, 63 OR L REV 247 (1984).
11. “The precise origin of our reliance on and acceptance of prosecutorial discretion is unknown. . . . Whatever its origin, discretion now pervades all facets of justice administration.” 63 OR L REV, at 248.
13. Id. at 259, 164.
14. The methodology of the likely confrontation should also be planned, as a necessary contingency. If the judiciary were to give explicit docketing priority to its “core value” jurisdiction, resultant Speedy Trial Act violations would result in dismissal of extraneous cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3162, with ample opportunity for local prosecutors to accept jurisdiction.
15. See DOJ Manual, supra, Chapter 22. A major objective of the Pretrial Diversion Program is “[t]o save prosecutive and judicial resources for concentration on major, serious cases.” Id., at § 9-22.000B. Congress has explicitly provided for investigation and supervision of divertees in the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. 18 U.S.C. § 3154(10). “Implied statutory authority for the [diversion] program appears as part of the Speedy Trial Act at 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2).” United States v. Allen, 683 F.Supp. 1136, 1137 n. 1 (E.D. Mich. 1988). State cases recognizing pretrial diversion to be a judicial function include Dearborne v. State, 575 S.W.2d 259, 4 ALR4th 138 (Tenn. 1981).
16. Language on page 94 of the Proposed Plan assumes that the alternative rate (the equivalent of “locality pay”) and the annual cost-of-living provisions of the CJA are optional suggestions which the Judicial Conference can indefinitely defer. See Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 79, 108 (November 12, 1990) (approving alternative rates and “automatic” annual cost-of-living increases “subject to whatever priorities the Conference might establish for the use of available resources”). Cf. National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (President is not above the law; has constitutional duty to implement statutory pay adjustments).
18. United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1390 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
19. See, e.g., Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) (“actual” conflict of interest avoided when defendants, represented by one firm, were tried separately). Such a severance solution would mitigate any contemplated economy.
21. Adopted by the ABA in 1983, “more than two-thirds of the jurisdictions [have] adopted new professional standards based on these Model Rules.” Preface to the Model Rules (1993).
22. See Rule 44(c), Fed. R. Crim. Pro.
23. See, e.g., Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding no waiver by client).
24. United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1453 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Judge, 625 F.Supp. 901, 902 (D.Haw. 1986), aff’d, 855 F.2d 863 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 959 (1988)).
25. See, e.g., Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pa., 975 F.2d 102 (3rd Cir. 1992) (federal court rules for federal prosecutors suing state disciplinary board over rule requiring prior judicial approval for grand jury subpoenas issued to defense attorneys). The federal courts are also embroiled in the government’s claim that federal prosecutors are exempt from state ethical rules forbidding contact with represented persons.
Matter of Doe, 801 F.Supp. 478 (D.N.M. 1992) (remanding same disciplinary proceeding to Ferrara). The state courts, however, are beginning to object.
See, Mark Curriden, “State Court Chiefs Flex New Muscle,” The National Law Journal, October 17, 1994 (50 state chief justices unanimously condemn Justice Department position on represented party contact exemption; give Attorney General “an earful”).
26. See ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, PROVIDING DEFENSE SERVICES (ABA Standard) 5-1.2 (3rd Ed. 1992) (Systems for legal representation).
27. The institutional need for an occasional private voice is illustrated by In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985), where the unanimous Supreme Court held that a private CJA panel attorney was not contemptuous for harshly criticizing the administration of the CJA — and then refusing to retract his criticism and apologize. “Officers of the court may appropriately express criticism on such matters.” Government employees, however, are not so protected. Waters v. Churchill, 114 S.Ct. 1878 (1994) (public employees can be summarily fired for criticism that could disrupt efficiency).
28. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(3).
29. “Model Criminal Justice Act Plan” of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, at VI.C.
30. ABA Standard 5-1.2 (Commentary).
31. Miller, Separation of Powers, An Ancient Doctrine Under Modern Challenge, 28 AD L J 299, 304 (1976).
32. Kaufman, The Essence of Judicial Independence, 80 COL L REV 671, 700 (1980).

References: v. 
 § 9
 § 9
 § 220
 § 3162
 § 9
 § 3154
 § 3161
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3006