The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S4917-S4918 on July 7, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. BOOKER:
S. 3144. A bill to enforce the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of effective counsel at all stages of the adversarial process, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide declaratory and injunctive relief against systemic violations of such right, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Clarence Gideon Full Access to Justice Act, Gideon Act, and the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016, two bills aimed at addressing the access to justice crisis. Today, America's broken justice system is riddled with deficiencies in our indigent defense system and gaps in legal services to the poor. To repair those shortcomings, these bills would improve the justice delivery system that serves people who are unable to afford counsel.
Gaps in legal services to the poor exist at all levels of our justice system. To fill in those gaps in the highest court of our land and better balance the scales of justice between the government and the defendants, the Gideon Act would establish an independent federal public defender office charged with representing poor defendants before the United States Supreme Court. To address the indigent defense crisis in the states, the Equal Justice Under Law Act would create a private right of action that allows a class of indigent defendants to sue in federal court when systemic violations of their Sixth Amendment rights to counsel occur.
In 1963, the Nation's highest court ruled that Americans have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a criminal case, even if they cannot afford one. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court declared it an
``obvious truth'' that ``any person hailed into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him.'' By clarifying that counsel must not only be present, but be ``effective,'' Gideon marked a landmark shift towards creating a justice system that safeguards equal justice under law for all.
Nearly 5 decades after Gideon, its promise of equal justice remains unfulfilled. Today, the federal government has no entity dedicated to furnishing legal counsel for criminal defendants in Supreme Court cases. Rather, lawyers in private practice who volunteer their services or public defenders who often have never argued before the High Court are often tasked with delivering competent legal representation to the poor in Supreme Court criminal cases.
The prosecution, however, has highly specialized lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice who represent its interests. With a small cadre of lawyers from the Solicitor General's Office dedicated solely to Supreme Court litigation, the government amasses considerable appellate experience before the Court. As the most frequent advocate before the Court, the Solicitor General routinely files writs of certiorari and argues criminal cases each term. With this experience, the government has the opportunity, foreclosed to defendants with private attorneys, to establish familiarity and, ultimately, credibility with the Court.
The structural imbalance between prosecutors and defendants at the Supreme Court has a profound impact on our justice system. Without counsel trained and experienced in Supreme Court advocacy, the likelihood that cases are decided against criminal defendants increases. In addition, the development of criminal precedent can far too often tilt in favor of the government and against the civil rights of ordinary Americans seeking justice in criminal cases.
To address these structural deficiencies, I am introducing the Gideon Act. This bill would establish a Federal corporation called the Defender Office for Supreme Court Advocacy, which would be dedicated to Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of criminal defendants. The bill aims to breathe life into the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and to help level the playing field at the Supreme Court between prosecutors and defendants.
The Gideon Act would empower the office with critical tools to zealously represent indigent defendants at the front end, middle, and back end of the Supreme Court advocacy process.
At the front end, known as the writ of certiorari stage, the office would have authority to monitor noncapital Federal and State cases seeking Supreme Court review for Federal law issues. By allowing the office to file cert petitions in criminal cases, the office could have critical input into which criminal cases the Supreme Court accepts to hear and decide. By empowering the office to consult with lawyers representing criminal defendants seeking the High Court's review, the office can serve as a resource to lawyers inexperienced in Supreme Court advocacy.
During the middle of the process, known as the merits stage, the office would be empowered to zealously represent the poor. From filing merits and ``friend of the court'' briefs to responding to the Court's
``call for views'' on complex criminal law issues to participating at oral argument in criminal cases, the office could provide all forms of advocacy on behalf of the poor. As such, the office would provide a necessary counter-weight for defendants to prosecutors' specialized Supreme Court expertise within Solicitor General's Office. It would also provide a centralized resource for defenders to develop uniformity on federal criminal case law.
On the back end, after a Supreme Court case is completed, the office could help train other defenders throughout the nation on the unique experience of practicing before the Supreme Court. In addition, the office would have the power to participate in appellate advocacy before the highest State courts in our land, if resources permit. This tool is necessary to help develop criminal case law nationwide since most criminal cases that the Supreme Court hears a term come Federal criminal law issues arising from State courts, rather than from Federal courts.
Today, I am also introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 5124, the Equal Justice Under Law Act. This bill aims to address America's public defense crisis, and I thank Rep. Patrick Maloney for his leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives.
Today, many State and local governments have failed to provide the funding necessary for public defenders to keep pace with the flood of criminal cases. Without resources, many public defenders lack the staff, training, or time to investigate each case adequately and prepare a robust legal defense. As a result of being underpaid and overworked, they are simply unable to provide the accused with their right to effective assistance of counsel.
Ample evidence exists that shows the state of public defense in America is in crisis. According to the American Bar Association, anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants need publically funded attorneys. Yet, due to a lack of resources, far too many public defenders are unable to meet this demand. In fact, a 2013 report from the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that public defense offices are so overworked and underfunded that clients are not getting the legal representation they need. Citing a funding disparity between the prosecution and public defenders, the report found that State prosecutors' office budgets were $5.8 billion in 2007, while State and local public defender expenditures were only $2.3 billion.
Excessive caseloads are another example of how Americans' right to counsel is defective. In 2009, the Constitution Project's National Right to Counsel Committee--comprised of current and former judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officials--released a report entitled ``Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel.'' The report found that all too often indigent defendants were provided counsel late or not at all. Even when a public defender represented a defendant, the report showed that lawyers' excessive caseloads made effective representation simply not possible. In conclusion, the report recommended ``litigation to remedy such deficiencies should be instituted.''
To help fix the indigent defense crisis, the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016 would implement this common-sense recommendation into action. The bill would create a federal cause of action that allows indigent criminal defendants to file a lawsuit against states and localities for systemic failures to provide effective assistance of counsel in felony cases. Litigation to be a useful tool to remedy systemic failures when indigent defense systems require defense attorneys to represent more clients than they can competently represent or otherwise fail to assure legal representation in compliance with the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.
The bill would require states to consult with representatives from the public defender community prior to distributing Byrne JAG funds. Currently, Federal defenders are eligible for Byrne JAG funds. Yet, in practice, Federal defenders may not get the same proportion of these funds as prosecutors and law enforcement. So this provision would ensure that defenders are consulted before critical Federal funds are distributed.
This access to justice legislation has the support of numerous civil rights groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Innocence Project.
Our public defender system is broken. It is time we fix it. I am proud to introduce the Gideon Act and the Equal Justice Under Law Act and I urge their speedy passage.
____________________
