Source: http://openjurist.org/498/us/233/in-re-vivian-berger
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 21:01:19
Document Index: 1588994

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 801', '§ 848', '§ 3006', '§ 3006']

498 US 233 In Re Vivian Berger | OpenJurist
498 U.S. 233 - In Re Vivian Berger Homethe United States Reports498 U.S.
498 US 233 In Re Vivian Berger 498 U.S. 233
111 S.Ct. 628
112 L.Ed.2d 710
Petitioner Vivian Berger, appointed to represent a capital defendant in proceedings before this Court pursuant to this Court's Rule 39.7,* has filed a motion requesting compensation for such services well in excess of the statutory maximum of $2,500 permitted under present practice by the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2) (CJA). Although it has been the practice of this Court to adhere to the limits of § 3006A(d)(2), petitioner argues that this statutory cap for capital cases recently has been lifted by a provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 4312, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which permits the Court to award compensation in an amount "reasonably necessary" to ensure competent representation. 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(10).
We adopt this general approach, and therefore turn to the question of what level of compensation is "reasonably necessary" to ensure that capital defendants receive competent representation in proceedings before this Court. Our Rules provide that "[i]n a case in which certiorari has been granted or jurisdiction has been noted or postponed, this Court may appoint counsel to represent a party financially unable to afford an attorney to the extent authorized by the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 3006A." Rule 39.7. It has been our practice to award appointed counsel in both capital and noncapital cases the amount of compensation requested, up to the $2,500 cap of § 3006A(d)(2). We note that this practice has served both the Court and the parties well. Under existing practice, the level of representation by appointed counsel in capital cases has almost invariably been of high quality and the administrative ease by which requests for fees are disposed of under the bright-line rule of § 3006A(d)(2) assists in conserving the limited resources of the institution.