Judge vetoes plan to decrease workloads for Missouri’s ‘inundated’ public defender system

A federal judge has refused to approve an agreement to regulate Missouri public defender case workloads, saying the consent decree proposed in the lawsuit isn’t the way to solve the problem.

Missourians who were assigned public defenders sued the Office of the Missouri State Public Defender, the Public Defender Commission, the state and the governor’s office in 2017, arguing that they did not receive adequate representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state and the governor’s office were eventually dismissed from the case.

The plaintiffs, some of whom spent years in jail awaiting their cases to be resolved, were represented by the MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The consent decree, reached through mediation between the plaintiffs and the commission, was submitted to the court last May for approval. The plan was opposed by Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who filed a brief in opposition after an attempt to intervene was rebuffed by the court.

The consent decree would have limited public defenders to 40-hour work weeks and fewer than 174 hours of casework a month. Public defenders currently juggle more than 200 cases a year, along with administrative duties.

In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Nanette Laughrey acknowledged that the public defender system was “inundated.” But she refused to approve the consent decree because she said it would expose public defenders to possible contempt charges from federal court if they worked too much and from state court if they refused to represent someone deemed eligible for defense.

She noted that the solution should only apply to those who sued because the court had already decided against certifying Missouri public defender clients as a class.

“Ultimately, the staffing problems identified in the record may result in specific state criminal convictions being set aside because of Sixth Amendment violations and/or additional ethics complaints against public defenders, even though the public defenders are not at fault for the staffing problems,” Laughrey wrote in her order. “Nonetheless, the proposed consent decree is not the vehicle to ensure that the (Missouri State Public Defender) and the State of Missouri meet their legal obligation to provide constitutionally adequate representation to indigent defendants.”

Laughrey’s order also detailed the issues with the Missouri Public Defender system. Since the public defender system was founded in 1989, there have been 10 independent evaluations.

Most have noted that the system is underfunded by the state and lacks the attorneys it needs to properly function. One said it was on the “verge of collapse.”

Last week, Missouri’s new Supreme Court chief justice implored lawmakers to pay more attention to funding the state’s public defender system.

“Speaking from the perspective of both a former prosecutor and a former trial judge, I can tell you the system simply does not work without a sufficiently funded and staffed public defender system,” said Judge George Draper III.

The Attorney General’s Office said Tuesday it was “encouraged by the decision,” but declined to comment further, in anticipation of further litigation.

It’s unclear whether the parties will work on a second agreement or if the case will now go trial.

Amy Breihan, the Macarthur Justice Center’s lead attorney on the case, said plaintiffs will know more about the direction of the case after a status call with the judge Wednesday.

“Although this is a setback to resolving this important case, we remain dedicated to fighting on behalf of indigent defendants across the state whose rights continue to be violated on a daily basis because of Missouri’s overworked and under-resourced public defender system,” Breihan said. “This litigation will continue.”

Mary Fox, the Missouri State Public Defender director, said that while she found the order to be “disappointing,” it was another acknowledgment of the need to address the issues within the public defender system.

“She acknowledges the problem exists,” Fox said. “The Supreme Court acknowledges the problem exists. Judges in circuit courts around the state acknowledge the problem exists and have established wait lists.”

“I think it’s time that instead of simply acknowledging the problem exists, we need to do something,” Fox said.

Fox has proposed the state legislature increases the office’s funding by $3 million for the coming budget year to eliminate the wait list of more than 5,000 cases by contracting them out to private attorneys.

However, the money would go a longer way if the legislature allowed Fox to hire more in-house attorneys.

“This the perfect time for the legislature to say, ‘We are not going to let the state courts come under the auspices of a federal court order. We are going to fix the problem ourselves and fund the public defender system,’” Fox said.

Getting the $3 million for contract cases is not guaranteed. In years past, then-Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed funding increases for the system, as well as constraints on eligibility for those who qualify for a public defender.

This year, Gov. Mike Parson has recommended a $1.4 million increase over last year’s funding, millions short of what the public defenders say they need to adequately do their job. The state legislature must decide on next year’s budget by mid-May.

This story was originally published January 28, 2020 at 5:53 PM.