NCJ Number
85796
Date Published
Unknown
Length
72 pages
Annotation
This report provides a history of Arkansas' public defender system, a summary of the LEAA-funded project to develop an appellate public defender office, and an assessment of the legislature's refusal to adopt this program as a permanent office.
Abstract
Sources of information were monthly reports of the Arkansas Appellate Public Defender (AAPD), observations and interviews at the AAPD office, interviews with State officials, and a site visit. A review of the State's indigent defense system covers relevant laws, the appellate procedure, and its expenditures on indigent defense which are among the lowest in the United States. An historical survey of the AAPD, which operated from February 1980 through April 1981, describes its budget, personnel, and administration. Although an October 1980 evaluation perceived that support for the appellate defender was firmly established throughout all government branches, the AAPD experienced political problems from the start which would ultimately affect its future. These included a court decision upholding a maximum fee of $350 per case for appointed counsel in trial cases, the defeat of the incumbent governor by a fiscal conservative in 1980, and defeat of constitutional amendments requiring the legislature to create a public defender system. Efforts of the AAPD to obtain support from bar associations, the courts, the legislature, and the State attorney general were unable to overcome the deep-seated hostility to any appropriations for appellate defense for the indigent and the AAPD authorization bill was soundly defeated in March 1981. Areas considered in a summary of the AAPD's activities include caseloads, scope and quality of service, training, case weighting and staffing ratios, office administration, personnel, information management, and facilities. The quality of the work performed was perceived as above average to excellent. The evaluation concludes that the legislature's failure to fund the AAPD was based primarily on political and economic factors, rather than the office's performance. The AAPD, however, did fail to adequately make a case for its continued existence by using readily available data, education of the bar and public, and effective legislative advocacy. The appendixes contain budget data, relevant court decisions, draft legislation, weekly caseload reports, and local newspaper articles on the veto.