Opinion ID: 1881163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Failed to Consider Credible, Unrebutted Evidence as to the Deficiencies of Quitman's Indigent Defense System

Text: ¶ 56. Upon a through review of the record and briefs in the instant case, it is apparent that the circuit court completely ignored entire categories of expert and lay witness testimony, authoritative standards, governmental studies, and defense witness admissions which highlighted the deficiencies of Quitman's indigent defense system. For instance, in determining whether essential tools were provided to a defendant to assist in his defense, courts look to objective criteria promulgated by the American Bar Association and other standard-setting bodies. See, e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2536-37, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (counsel failed to go beyond pre-sentence report and social services records in investigating mitigating evidence, as required by ABA standards); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (counsel did not investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence, as ABA standards prescribe); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. (Prevailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards and the like, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-1.1 to 4-8.6 (2d ed. 1980) (The Defense Function), are guides to determining what is reasonable). While these standards and their applicability to Quitman were briefed extensively to the trial court, there is no indication that the trial court ever considered them. ¶ 57. There are at least three substantial reasons why the trial court should have utilized the ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function (ABA Defense Function Standards) as a benchmark for determining whether Quitman's indigent defense system violates the Mississippi Constitution: (1) the standards represent the legal community's consensus as to the minimum required of an indigent defense system; (2) this Court and other courts rely on the ABA standards to determine compliance with the constitutional mandate of effective assistance of counsel, and (3) the standards mirror this Court's holdings regarding the minimum requirements of a constitutional indigent defense system. By ignoring the intelligible framework of the ABA standards, the trial court faced a tremendous disadvantage in assessing the constitutionality of Quitman's indigent defense system. ¶ 58. In addition to the authoritative standards of the ABA, the trial court ignored volumes of credible, unrebutted evidence which was determinative of Quitman's claims. This Court has long held that it is reversible error for a trial court to ignore uncontradicted evidence. Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 53 So.2d 69, 75 (1951) ([E]vidence which is not contradicted by positive testimony or circumstances, and is not inherently improbable, incredible, or unreasonable, cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously discredited, disregarded, or rejected. . . .); Tarver v. Lindsey, 161 Miss. 379, 137 So. 93, 96 (1931) (Where, as in this case, the testimony of witnesses is undisputed, is reasonable in itself, . . . . and the witnesses are unimpeached, then the trier of facts must act on the testimony and cannot reject it, else trial might eventuate in arbitrary results . . .); Holmes v. Holmes, 154 Miss. 713, 123 So. 865, 866-67 (1929) (reversing lower court's dismissal where trial court ignored both the undisputed testimony of a clerk with direct personal knowledge of the transaction at issue, as well as a letter written by defendant containing important admissions). ¶ 59. Here, the record contains undisputed expert and lay witness testimony establishing that the county-based system fails to provide the tools of an adequate statewide defense system. Many court-appointed defense attorneys throughout the State do not file pretrial motions, use experts or invest the time necessary to represent their indigent clients effectively. In addition to lacking governmental oversight, these attorneys have no administrative or investigative support to assist in the representation of their clients. The trial court ignored the following evidence: a. There are a substantial number of instances where neither lawyer nor defendant recognize each other at arraignment, and prisoners remain in jail up to 4 to 5 months without any contact with their attorney. b. Client meetings are held in groups in the courtroom within earshot of the prosecutor and the judge. c. Public defenders routinely waive preliminary hearings, accept facts in indictments, and do not ask for investigators or experts. d. There is no opportunity for the investigation or communication necessary to make an informed decision when pleas are entered on arraignment day. e. There is a vast disparity between the resources of the State and public defenders. ¶ 60. Governmental studies have repeatedly found that the tools of an adequate defense are missing in county indigent defense systems. For instances, the Spangenberg studies [2] found that funding for indigent defense is totally inadequate, the lack of adequate resources for indigent defense services results in poor quality services and representation, there is no state wide oversight of indigent defense, which leads to a hodgepodge, county-by-county approach to providing services, and [e]very aspect of defense representation is compromised. Similarly, the Mississippi Public Defenders Task Force report [3] concluded that indigent defense remained a vexing problem for the counties and contained deeply troubling reports by several circuit court judges describing systemic inadequacies they have observed in their districts. While this information was available to the trial court, its opinion does not refer to these repeated findings of inadequate representation.