2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 11 - Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts. [Enacted title] › Chapter 26 - Representation of Indigents in Criminal Cases › § 11–2605. Services other than counsel

§ 11–2605. Services other than counsel.
(a) Counsel for a person who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for an adequate defense may request them in an ex parte application. Upon finding, after appropriate inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are necessary and that the person is financially unable to obtain them, the court shall authorize counsel to obtain the services.
(b) Counsel appointed under this section may obtain, subject to later review, investigative, expert, or other services, excluding the preparation of reporter’s transcript, without prior authorization if necessary for an adequate defense. The total cost of services obtained without prior authorization may not exceed $375 or the rate provided by § 3006A(e)(2) of title 18, United States Code, whichever is higher, and expenses reasonably incurred.
(c) Compensation to be paid to a person for services rendered by such person to a person under this subsection shall not exceed $750, or the rate provided by § 3006A(e)(3) of title 18, United States Code, whichever is higher, exclusive of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred, unless payment in excess of that limit is certified by the court, as necessary to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character or duration, and the amount of the excess payment is approved by the presiding judge in the case.
(Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1092, Pub. L. 93-412, § 2; Jan. 31, 1984, D.C. Law 5-44, § 3, 30 DCR 5411; June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, § 1(b)(122), 108 Stat. 713; Dec. 21, 2001, 115 Stat. 929, Pub. L. 107-96; Oct. 16, 2006, 120 Stat. 2024, Pub. L. 109-356, § 113(a); Dec. 29, 2022, Pub. L. 117-328, Division E, Title VIII, § 819(b)(1), .)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 11-2605.
1973 Ed., § 11-2605.
Section References
This section is referenced in § 7-1906, § 11-2606, § 16-2326.01, and § 22-4133.
Effect of Amendments
Pub. L. 107-96 inserted a new subsec. (b) providing a fixed rate of compensation; and redesignated former subsecs. (b) and (c) as subsecs. (c) and (d).
Pub. L. 109-356 repealed former subsec. (b); redesignated former subsecs. (c) and (d) as subsecs. (b) and (c); and, in subsecs. (b) and (c), inserted “(or, in the case of investigative services, a fixed rate of $25 per hour)”. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “(b) Subject to the applicable limits described in subsections (c) and (d), an individual providing services under this section shall be compensated at a fixed rate of $25 per hour, and shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred.”
Cross References
Neglect and termination of parental rights proceedings, compensation of attorneys, see § 16-2326.01.
Applicability
Section 819(b)(2) of Division E of Title VIII of Public Law 117-328 provided that he amendments made by section 812 shall apply with respect to investigative services provided in connection with cases and proceedings initiated on or after December 29, 2022.
Effective Dates
Pub. L. 107-96, 115 Stat. 923, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002, provided in part:
“The amendments made by this provision shall apply with respect to cases and proceedings initiated on or after March 1, 2002.”
Section 113(b) of Pub. L. 109-356 provided that the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [October 16, 2006].
Editor's Notes
Prompt Payment of Appointed Counsel. Section 129 of Pub. L. 107-96, Dec. 21, 2001, 115 Stat. 929, provided:
“(a) ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST FOR DELAYED PAYMENTS—If the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals does not make a payment described in subsection (b) prior to the expiration of the 45-day period which begins on the date the Court receives a completed voucher for a claim for the payment, interest shall be assessed against the amount of the payment which would otherwise be made to take into account the period which begins on the day after the expiration of such 45-day period and which ends on the day the Court makes the payment.
“(b) PAYMENTS DESCRIBED.—A payment described in this subsection is —
“(1) a payment authorized under section 11-2604 and section 11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act);
“(2) a payment for counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Code; or
“(3) a payment for counsel authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986).
“(c) STANDARDS FOR SUBMISSION OF COMPLETED VOUCHERS.—The chief judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall establish standards and criteria for determining whether vouchers submitted for claims for payments described in subsection (b) are complete, and shall publish and make such standards and criteria available to attorneys who practice before such Courts.
“(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the assessment of interest against any claim (or portion of any claim) which is denied by the Court involved.
“(e) Effective Date.—This section shall apply with respect to claims received by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals during fiscal year 2002, and claims received previously that remain unpaid at the end of fiscal year 2001, and would have qualified for interest payment under this section.”
Prompt Payment of Appointed Counsel. Section 128 of Pub. L. 108-7, Feb. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 11, provided:
“(a) If the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals does not make a payment described in subsection (b) prior to the expiration of the 45-day period which begins on the date the Court receives a completed voucher for a claim for the payment, interest shall be assessed against the amount of the payment which would otherwise be made to take into account the period which begins on the day after the expiration of such 45-day period and which ends on the day the Court makes the payment.
“(b) A payment described in this subsection is—
“(1) a payment authorized under section 11-2604 and section 11-2605, D.C. Official Code (relating to representation provided under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act);
“(2) a payment for counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Official Code; or
“(3) a payment for counsel authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Official Code (relating to representation provided under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986).
“(c) The chief judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall establish standards and criteria for determining whether vouchers submitted for claims for payments described in subsection (b) are complete, and shall publish and make such standards and criteria available to attorneys who practice before such Courts.
“(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the assessment of interest against any claim (or portion of any claim) which is denied by the Court involved.
“(e) This section shall apply with respect to claims received by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals during fiscal year 2003 and any subsequent fiscal year.”