By various measures public defender workloads are too high, resulting in hurried and perhaps less thorough criminal defense. Unfortunately, there are no easy options to reduce stress on the public defender system.
Although we think adding more public defenders to the system would address many of the concerns we identified, the likelihood of substantial funding
increases in the state’s current fiscal environment is small. An alternative would be to carefully evaluate the state’s policies regarding crime and punishment. Stakeholder groups past and present have suggested reforms intended to relieve pressure on Minnesota’s criminal justice system. Table 3.9 summarizes some of the more recent initiatives and their recommendations. The reforms suggested by these groups seek to reduce burden on public defenders and the courts by
decriminalizing certain lower level offenses, making greater use of diversion programs, removing or lessening the civil consequences associated with crimes, changing court procedures to reduce the number of hearings per case, modifying criminal sanctions, and altering the probation delivery system, among others. In 2009, the Legislature considered a bill that would have allowed the courts to handle unpaid misdemeanor citations on the payables list as guilty pleas, sending
them to collections.11 Because the citation would automatically be treated as a
petty misdemeanor with the imposition of a fine, rather than jail, the defendant would no longer have a right to a public defender. The provision was dropped in conference committee.
The State of Wisconsin established an aggregate maximum caseload threshold beyond which public defenders could take no more cases. If the maximum is reached, Wisconsin diverts public defender cases to private-sector, contract attorneys. In our opinion, this approach has several drawbacks. Diverting cases to contracted attorneys when the maximum threshold is met could be very expensive for the state. Diverting cases to counties could result in significant cost-shifting from state to local governments. Both options run counter to Minnesota’s commitment to a uniform, statewide public defender system. Another option would be to amend or repeal Minnesota’s case flow statute. If public defenders and the courts were not bumping up against statutory time limits, it might be possible to provide short-term relief by allowing public defenders more time per case. With the permission of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the public defender’s appellate office has adopted this strategy. Nonetheless, we do not see easing of case flow standards to be a long term solution because victims and defendants both deserve timely resolution of their
11 Minnesota Statutes 2009, 609.101 subd. 4, grants Minnesota’s Judicial Council authority to
establish a uniform fine schedule, known as the payables list, which allows individuals to pay a fine in lieu of a court appearance for certain listed offenses.
There are no easy
options to reduce
stress on the
public defender
system.
cases. Some judges and other state court system officials believe that easing of case flow standards is a poor option both in the short and long term. They said that extending statutory time standards would not provide short-term relief because delayed cases take more lawyer time than timely disposed cases. (However, public defenders stated that additional time per case is exactly what they need in order to prepare their cases and provide meaningful representation.)
Table 3.9: Recommendations to Reform Minnesota's
Criminal Justice System, 1997 to 2009
Year Source Recommendations
1997 Nonfelony Enforcement Advisory Committee (NEAC)
Among other things, recommended removing the threat of jail time for many first time offenses (including driving after suspension and low level theft and worthless check cases).
2003 Working Group on Criminal Justice System Efficiency
Identified seven themes for improving criminal justice efficiency, including:
- mandated diversion;
- new procedures for processing nonviolent misdemeanors;
- developing alternatives to prison and jail; and - examining civil consequences.
2007 Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Recommended serious review and reconsideration of the imposition of collateral consequences. 2008 Access and Service
Delivery Committee
Recommended a serious reconsideration of NEAC recommendations and committed to educate the legislature that no proof of insurance, registration, and driver's license crimes are best handled by the Department of Vehicle Services.
2008- present
Criminal Justice Forum In 2008, identified seven issues to pursue, including changing venue where judges can hear a case and handling no proof of insurance through an
administrative process. Going forward, the group intends to pursue issues such as:
- combining some hearings and eliminating meaningless hearings;
- determining if pre-sentence investigations are necessary;
- expanding pre-charge diversion and designing and implementing graduated sanctions of probation violations; and
- examining changes to the probation delivery systems.
SOURCES: Minnesota Supreme Court, Nonfelony Enforcement Advisory Committee Final Report
(St. Paul, January 15, 1997); Minnesota Departments of Corrections and Public Safety, Working
Group on Criminal Justice System Efficiency 2003 Report to the Legislature (St. Paul, January 2003), 2-3; Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Collateral Consequences Report to the Legislature (St. Paul, January 2007), 6-7; Minnesota Supreme Court, Access and Service Delivery Committee Report to the Minnesota Judicial Council (St. Paul, July 17, 2008), 10; and meeting minutes from the Criminal Justice Forum, 2008 and 2009.