ACLU files emergency motion against new public defense system
Published at
Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports
BOISE (Idaho Reports) — The ACLU of Idaho filed an emergency motion against the state on Dec. 23 arguing the newest public defense system is failing.
The motion filed in Tucker v Idaho in the Idaho Supreme Court is part of ongoing litigation over Idaho’s public defense system. On Oct. 1, the state took over full control of the public defense system from the counties.
The change in the public defense system comes after sweeping legislation transferred the financial responsibility of public defense from the counties to a newly formed state office. The ACLU argues there are widespread violations in the new system.
In the emergency motion, attorneys are asking the court to require the state to release anyone who is incarcerated but has not been able to establish contact with their assigned attorney for at least seven days and to release those who go unrepresented at major hearings in their cases.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles all criminal defendants to an attorney if they cannot afford one.
“In the wake of SPD’s distribution of their form contract and the Idaho State Bar’s Formal Ethics Opinion, hundreds—if not thousands—of indigent defendants were left without representation as appointed counsel filed motions to withdraw from their cases,” according to the motion.
The plaintiffs cite the mass resignations from some counties as one issue.
“Since mid-August, for example, nearly 25% of the attorneys in Ada County’s institutional office have resigned (mostly felony level attorneys), at least some due to the pay cuts that they received under the new state-based system or the excessive caseloads defenders in the office must carry,” according to the motion.
They argue the state did not supply the new office with enough money to appropriately pay attorneys.
They argue the state did not supply the new office with enough money to appropriately pay attorneys. “The District Public Defender for the First District confirmed on the record at an order to show cause hearing that Kootenai County’s SPD office has only 11 public defenders, not even half of the 26 that they need,” according to the motion.
The motion includes several sworn declarations from attorneys.
“The Canyon County SPD office has 23 public defenders, also well short of the 32 the county’s institutional public defender office had prior to the SPD,” according to the motion.
The motion outlines defendants who have suffered because of the shortage.
“In numerous courtroom proceedings across the state between September and December 2024, defendants showed up to court only to find themselves unrepresented,” the motion states. “…On just one day in Kootenai County, not a single defendant had counsel in any of 17 misdemeanor arraignments. Many defendants would appear, only to find that their counsel wasn’t present, or that they had never been formally assigned one at all. A long-time Shoshone and Kootenai County private attorney who no longer handles public defense cases has witnessed numerous hearings where there was not a court-appointed attorney present for the indigent defendant.”
The motion goes on to name defendants who were in custody and did not have representation. They cite members of the judiciary who expressed their concerns publicly.
“Judge Pittard dismissed the defendant’s charges ‘in the interest of justice’ and ‘given the [SPD’s] ineptitude and inability to secure legal counsel’ after SPD indicated it ‘was not sure when conflict counsel would be acquired,’ nearly a month after the case was filed,” according to the motion.
The plaintiffs ask the court to appoint a monitor to require ongoing reporting on caseloads, funding, staffing, and other critical metrics that correspond to the ability of public defenders to provide adequate representation, and to otherwise ensure compliance with a court-approved plan to remedy proven deficiencies.
“As Plaintiffs’ new evidence shows, there is a widespread and worsening trend of class members—both in and out of custody—waiting weeks, if not months, for counsel to be assigned to their case, and then receiving no guarantee that their attorney can actually show at their court appearances,” according to the motion.
The plaintiffs take issue with the state’s new public defense act.
“The State Public Defender Act also does not mandate professional standards, procedures for oversight and compliance, or reporting systems—all crucial mechanisms for ensuring consistent, adequate representation,” the motion states.
In February 2024, a district judge dismissed complaints in the case, but at the time the state had not yet fully taken over the public defense system.
The motion also asks the court to require weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports on the state system, allowing the public and taxpayers to monitor whether the system is constitutional.
“This is an obvious and egregious violation of a defendant’s right to legal representation,” said Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU of Idaho in a press release Thursday. “We started this case nearly 10 years ago, and despite winning at the Idaho Supreme Court again and again, now we’re back trying to stave off complete disaster. It’s unfathomable that people have already been denied their constitutional right for nearly a decade, but the state is again taking us backward.”
On Tuesday, the state responded to the court requesting more time for filing a response and asked the court to determine if it will consider this new evidence on appeal.
The SPD’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.