NACDL - Systemic Litigation

Systemic Litigation

Major systemic litigation cases (in chronological order based on date of filing)

DUNCAN v. MICHIGAN
CITATION	795 NW2d 820 (2011)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Feb. 2007, State Court (Ingham County, MI)
CASE STATUS	Closed by Voluntary Dismissal by plaintiffs 2013
KEY ISSUES	Class action suit alleging the state abdicated its constitutional and statutory obligation to provide public defense by delegating the responsibility to the counties without providing adequate funding or oversight.
OUTCOME	While the case was pending, Michigan established an Indigent Defense Advisory Committee which recommended significant changes to the system. In 2013 MI passed legislation implementing state-wide reforms.
AMICUS	NACDL Amicus filed 2010
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials and all amicus filings

HURRELL-HARRING v. STATE OF NEW YORK
CITATION	930 N.E.2d 217 (N.Y.2010)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Nov. 2007, State Court (Albany County, NY)
CASE STATUS	Settled, 2014, Settlement Agreement Terms. 2016 and 2017 Legislation passed to enact settlement terms.
KEY ISSUES	Class action suit alleged 5 named New York counties’ public defense systems violated state and federal constitution. Allegations included lack of representation at critical stages of case; insufficient training, supervision, and performance standards; insufficient resources; lack of adequate compensation; and lack of independence.
OUTCOME	Case permitted to proceed as class action seeking prospective relief on claim of constructive denial of counsel due to systemic deficiencies. Following DOJ filing a statement of interest in support of plaintiffs, a settlement was reached implementing significant reforms. Settlement Agreement
AMICUS	NACDL Amicus filed 2010 DOJ Statement of Interest
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

COLORADO DEFENSE BAR v. HICKENLOOPER
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Dec. 2010, Federal Court (D. CO)
CASE STATUS	Closed by Voluntary Dismissal (2013)
KEY ISSUES	Suit to declare Colorado statute 16-7-301(4) unconstitutional as it requires an indigent accused to speak with the prosecutor before the court would consider appointing counsel.
OUTCOME	While case was pending the legislature repealed the statute and authorized funds to hire additional public defenders.
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

WILBUR v. CITY OF MOUNT VERNON (WA)
CITATION	989 F.Supp.2d 112 (W.D.Wash.2013)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	June 2011,State Court (Skagit County), Def.removed to Federal Court (WD WA)
CASE STATUS	Closed, ruling in favor of plaintiffs
KEY ISSUES	Plaintiffs alleged the two municipalities (Burlington and Mt. Vernon) through their failure to adequately fund and monitor the contracts used to provide public defense services, systematically denied indigent defendants their right to counsel under the federal and state constitutions.
RULING & CONCLUSIONS	The District Court found indigent defendants were systematically deprived of the assistance of counsel through the municipalities’ deliberate choices regarding funding, contracting, and monitoring of their public defense systems. The Court recognized having counsel present is not sufficient, clients are entitled to a meaningful relationship with their attorney.
AMICUS	DOJ Statement of Interest
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

KUREN v. LUZERNE COUNTY (Flora v. Luzerne County)(PA)
CITATION	146 A.3d 715 (Pa.2016)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	April 2012, State Court (Luzerne County, PA)
CASE STATUS	Pending
KEY ISSUES	Initially brought by the Luzerne Public Defender (Flora v. Luzerne), the case asserted the failure to adequately fund the public defender system prevented defenders from providing constitutionally effective representation.
RULINGS	In 2016, after Flora’s departure from the public defender’s office the case, the PA Supreme Court held current and prospective clients had a right to pursue the case under a theory of a constructive denial of counsel because systemic deficiencies create an imminent risk of violating the right to counsel.
AMICUS	NACDL-PACDL Amicus filed 2015 DOJ Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials Flora v. Luzerne

N.P. v. STATE OF GEORGIA
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Jan. 2014, State Court (Fulton County, GA)
CASE STATUS	Settled by Consent Decree (2015)
KEY ISSUES	Alleges juveniles were actually and constructively denied their right to counsel in Cordele County due to systemic deficiencies.
OUTCOME	while the case was pending, Cordele County entered into a Consent Decree implementing a series of reforms targeted at ensuring juveniles are represented by specially trained juvenile defenders, and requiring juveniles speak with counsel before being able to waive their right to an attorney.
DOCUMENTS	DOJ Statement of Interest DOJ Consent Decree
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

BAIREFOOT V. CITY OF BEAUFORT (SC)
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	2017 Federal court (South Carolina)
CASE STATUS	Settled by Consent Decree (2019)
KEY ISSUES	Alleges systemic deficiencies stemming from the jurisdiction's municipal courts prosecuting and jailing of individuals without providing counsel.
OUTCOME	Settlement reached in which accused will be notified of their right to counsel and have counsel appolinted absent a specific, knowing waiver of the right to counsel. The jurisdictions will partner with an area public defender's office to provide primary representation
DOCUMENTS	Settlement Order
CASE MATERIALS	Complaint

PHILLIPS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	July 2015, State (Fresno County, CA)
CASE STATUS	Pending discovery in trial court
KEY ISSUES	Assert violation of state and federal constitution causing constructive denial of counsel because defenders have an excessive caseload which bars their providing meaningful representation. Allegations include failure to adequately fund and monitor public defense services in the county.
OUTCOME	On March 12, 2016, the trial court denied motions by the state and county to dismiss the case. The state filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the decision, which the Court of Appeal denied.
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

TUCKER v. IDAHO
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	June 2015, State Court (4^th Judicial District, ID)
CASE STATUS	Pending request by trial court for interlocutory appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court
KEY ISSUES	Alleges state and federal constitutional violations of the right to counsel because the state’s public defense system is overburdened and under resourced, and lack workload, performance, and training standards.
RULINGS	Following the granting and then vacating of the state’s motion to dismiss, the case was returned to the trial court for a hearing on the merits. A class seeking prospective relief was certified. The trial court denied cross-motions for summary judgment and requested the ID Supreme Court conduct an interlocutory appeal on the question of what standard the plaintiff will have to meet to prevail on their systemic challenge.
AMICUS	NACDL Amicus DOJ Amicus on Behalf of Tucker
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials and all amicus filings

ALLEN v. EDWARDS (LA)
CITATION
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Feb. 2017 State Court (East Baton Rouge, LA)
CASE STATUS	Pending
KEY ISSUES	Asserts constructive denial of right to counsel by state’s failure to establish an effective state public defense system. Allegations center on lack of timely appointment of counsel which prevent meaningful investigation, lack of pretrial release advocacy, and lack of support for plea negotiations or trial preparations. The suit highlights the disproportionate impact this is having on African Americans who are overrepresented in all stages of the state’s criminal legal system.
RULINGS	Case is pending, with the court granting class certification in 2018. In 2019 the court denied the state’s motion for summary judgment and the court of appeals denied the state’s appeal of the issue.
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

DALTON v. BARRETT (fka CHURCH v. STATE OF MISSOURI)
CITATION	2019 WL 954982, Dalton v. Barrett (July 12, 2019)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	Mar. 2017 State Court (removed by Defendants to federal court WD MO)
CASE STATUS	Pending
KEY ISSUES	Allegation of actual and constructive denial of the right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from chronic underfunding and excessive caseloads. Includes allegations of inadequate training and supervision, excessive delays and pretrial detention, and uncounseled pleas. *Case name changed from Church v. State to Dalton v. Barrett, when court ruled Church lacked standing to proceed and State was dismissed as a named defendant)
RULINGS	May 13, 2019 a Joint Motion for Consent Judgment was filed, which conceeded the plaintiffs were likley to succeed on the merits because the MSPD is "grossly overburdened" and systemically denies defendants of competent counsel. The AG's office moved to intervene. On July 12, 2019, the motion to interverne was denied. The Court did grant leave for the AG's Office to file an amicus relating to the proposed consent judgment.
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

BROWN V. LEXINGTION COUNTY (SC)
CITATION	2018 Wl 1556189
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	June 2017 Federal Court (D. SC)
CASE STATUS	Pending
KEY ISSUES	Class action alleging the county routinely violates the right to counsel by use of its Default Payment Policy, whereby individuals are arrested and jailed for non-payment of fees and fines without counsel. The suit also alleges the county’s practices fail to consider the individual’s ability to pay in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses.
RULINGS	While the suit was pending the SC Supreme Court issued a memorandum to magistrate judges addressing these practices. The County moved for summary judgment, asserting, among other claims, the Court’s memo mooted the issue. The Motion was denied. The County has appealed that ruling, which is pending before the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals.
CASE MATERIALS	View full case materials

STATE V. LEE (WISCONSIN)
CITATION	2022 WI 32 (Wis. 2022)
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	2021 State Supreme Court
CASE STATUS	Closed, Case dismissed as improvdently granted, reinstating the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' Decision to dismiss Lee's charges without prejudice.
KEY ISSUES	Lee alleged, among other things, the denial of the right to counsel when the circuit court made repeated findings of "good cause" to continue his case based solely on the inability of the State Public Defenders to take his case. He sought review of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decion to reverse the circuit court decision and dismiss the charges without prejudice. Lee urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to find that circuit courts must provide counsel at county expense in instances wherein the State Public Defender's Office cannot take the case.
RULINGS	Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals appropriately found an abuse of discretion by finding good cause to continue the case, but that the appropriate remedy is to dismiss the case without prejudice instead of appointing counsel at county expense.
CASE MATERIALS	View Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision

DAVID V. MISSOURI
CITATION	20AC-CC00093
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	February, 2020, State Court
CASE STATUS	Closed, Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs
KEY ISSUES	Class action alleging the state routinely violates the right to counsel by placing indigent defendants on the Missouri Office of the Public Defender’s Office waiting list due to lack of attorneys.
RULINGS	Court ruled that the state must provide defendants with counsel no later than two weeks after they are deemed indigent or at earlier critical stages to assist with bond, bail or change of venue matters.
CASE MATERIALS	View Judgment

ANTRELL THOMAS ET AL VS. ANTHONY S. EVERS ET AL.
CITATION	Case 2022CV001027
FILING DATE & JURISDICTION	August 23, 2022
CASE STATUS	Pending
KEY ISSUES	Class action alleging the state routinely violates the right to counsel by failing to timely appoint counsel within a reasonable time after an indigent person’s initial appearance.
RULINGS	Case still pending
CASE MATERIALS	View Case Materials Here

Systemic Litigation Relating to Pretrial Release

DOJ STATEMENTS OF INTEREST

DOJ Civil Rights Division: Dear Colleague Letter (2016)

DOJ letter to state and local judges regarding the unconstitutional practice of assessing fes and fines that fail to take into account an individual's ability to pay. The letter includes recommendations to help ensure court practices do not violate the guarantees of due process and equal protection including:

Courts must not incarcerate a person fo non-payment without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing any failure to pay was willful;
Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for non-payment;
Courts must not condition access to a hearing on the prepayment of fines or fees;
Courts must provide meaningful notice, and when appropriate, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees
Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspension as a means of coercing payment when an individual has not ben afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections
Courts must not employ bail practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release; and
Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors.

Additional Resources