On this page you will find:
  1. News
  2. Funding Public Defense Plans
  3. Michigan Litigation
  4. Michigan Reports and Studies
  5. Michigan News Articles / Editorials / Press Releases
  6. Michigan Public Defense Reform Movement
  7. Michigan Attorney Fee Resources
  8. National Litigation
  9. National Reports and Studies
  10. National News Articles / Editorials / Press Releases
  11. Public Defense Activities in Other States

  1. News

    1. Report Card on Michigan's Public Defense System, Michigan Campaign for JusticePDF Document (930 KB) (930 KB) February 18, 2009
    2. NLADA Report Indicts Michigan's System for Delivering Defense ServicesPDF Document (7.25 MB) (7.25 MB) June, 2008

  2. Funding Public Defense Plans

    1. Trial (Michigan): 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999

    2. Appellate (Michigan): 2007, 2003, 2001, 1997

    3. Funding of Defense Services (Michigan): 1999 - 2001, 1985

    4. Per Capita Public Defense Expenditure, prepared by Jim Neuhard, SADO.

      Michigan: 2001
      All States: 2002

    5. Type of Defense Delivery System

      Michigan, 2005, prepared by CDRC.

    6. Expenditures for Indigent Defense Services

      All States, 2002, prepared by Spangenberg Group.

    7. Nickel and Diming the Criminal Defendant: A Look at Financial Penalties in Felony Cases MS Word (65.5 KB) (65.5 KB) November, 2007

  3. Michigan Litigation:

    1. Trial Lawyers Association of Wayne County Juvenile Court, et al, v Kelly, complaint for superintending control filed April 10, 2007, in Michigan Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of lawyers removed as appointed counsel for their juvenile clients under a new local administrative order. The new order, LAO 2006-08, awarded contracts to attorney groups, for future and pending matters. Plaintiffs allege violations of the children's due process right to counsel and effective representation.

       

    2. Duncan v State of Michigan, a civil rights class action filed on February 22, 2007 in Ingham Circuit Court, alleges constitutional deficiencies in defense of indigents in Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon Counties. The suit was filed by the Michigan Coalition for Justice.

       

    3. Dwayne B., et al v Granholm, et al, #2:06-cv-13548, a civil rights class action complaint, is filed on August 8, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit is on behalf of all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of the Michigan Department of Human Services, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that the quality of legal representation provided by many lawyer guardians ad litem is impaired by oppressive caseloads.

       

    4. United States v Morris, Motion to Remand federal gun case to state court due to ineffective assistance of state counsel in advising defendant of federal sentencing consequences; implicit challenge to impact of "Project Safe Neighborhoods" on fundamental rights. Filed September 7, 2004.

       

    5. United States v Nixon, Motions claiming ineffective assistance of state defense counsel in failing to advise on federal sentencing consequences in gun case, like Morris above. Federal court orders on remedy, including access to documents on dual prosecution agreement between state and federal prosecutors, dated April and May, 2004.

       

    6. Lloyd v City of Detroit, et al, Notice of Removal to Federal Court and Complaint, seeking damages for estate of man wrongfully convicted of murder and rape who was incarcerated for seventeen years before his DNA-based exoneration, alleging violations of civil rights, state and federal constitutional rights, and statutory rights under federal Rehabilitation Act. Filed March 11, 2004.

       

    7. Watts, et al v Antkoviak, et al, Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief by assigned attorneys against administrators and judges in Allegan County; attorneys holding contract for assigned juvenile cases allege that annual contract is awarded on a political basis.

       

    8. In re Wayne County Criminal Defense Attorneys Association and Criminal Defense Attorneys Association of Michigan, Complaint for Superintending Control against Chief Judges of Wayne Circuit Court, seeking enforcement of statutory right to "reasonable fees." Filed November 8, 2002; denied by Michigan Supreme Court on June 27, 2003.

       

    9. In re Recorder's Court Bar Association v Chief Judges, Complaint for Superintending Control against Chief Judges of Detroit Recorder's and Wayne Circuit Courts, seeking enforcement of statutory right to "reasonable fees." Filed April, 1989; granted by Michigan Supreme Court on August 3, 1993.

       

  4. Michigan Reports and Studies

    1. NLADA released, in June of 2008, a comprehensive report on trial-level defense services in ten Michigan counties, titled "A Race to the Bottom, Speed & Savings Over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis."

    2. Michigan Task Force on Jail and Prison Overcrowding, 2005 Report.

    3. Michigan Task Force on Jail and Prison Overcrowding, MDOC News Release, April 21, 2005.

    4. Washtenaw County: Reducing the Corrections Budget through Effective Public Defense.

    5. Washtenaw County: Public Defender Impact on Exceptionally Low Jail and Prison Commitments.

  5. Michigan News Articles / Editorials / Press Releases

    Links in this section are archival, predating 2006. For more recent materials, see www.michigancampaignforjustice.org/news_coverage.php

    1. Michigan Lawyers Weekly

    2. Criminal Defense Newsletter

    3. Detroit News

    4. Detroit Free Press

    5. News Releases

    6. Michigan Bar Journal

    7. Other Media

  6. Michigan Public Defense Reform Movement

    1. The Michigan Campaign for Justice, a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, is a broad-based group of organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum fighting for a fair and effective public defense system in Michigan. See www.micampaignforjustice.org.

    2. The Michigan Public Defense Task Force, founded in 2001, is comprised of criminal and juvenile justice professionals, as well as concerned citizens from all walks of life, working to secure a legislative solution to Michigan's critically ill defense services system. See www.mipublicdefense.org.

    3. The State Bar of Michigan, the professional association to which all Michigan attorneys must belong, endorsed in 2005 the Eleven Principles of a Public Defense System. The Bar's Committee on Assigned Counsel Standards developed Standards for [Trial Level] Assigned Counsel, August 17, 1996. The Bar's Representative Assembly declined to adopt them, April 26, 1997. See also www.michbar.org/publicpolicy

    4. The Michigan Legislature adopted in 2006 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 39, calling for study of Michigan's public defense system by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA).

  7. Michigan Attorney Fee Resources

      Fee issues include not only the amount paid to assigned counsel, but fees for investigators and expert witnesses.

      A variety of resources are available to all, including sample pleadings, at www.sado.org/litigation.htm.

      The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) has a Task Force on Fees that can provide support to attorneys who are litigating fee issues. See www.cdam.net Subscribers to CDRC web services have online access to resources, including:

    1. Defender Trial Book, Chapter 4: Counsel Compensation
    2. Defender Motion Book, Chapter 4: Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses, and Chapter 5: Motion for Appointment of Investigator
    3. Brief Bank, appellate pleadings: Counsel--Compensation
    4. Forum archive: messages on attorney fees

  8. National Litigation

      Bromgard v Montana
    1. Bromgard Newsletter Reports, Source: Innocence Project and NACDL's The Champion, January/February, 2003
    2. Complaint, September, 2004
    3. "Bromgard Suit Blames Defender System," Billings Gazette, December 26, 2007
    4. Bromgard Court Findings, January, 2008
    5. "Bromgard Settles with State for $3.5 M", Billings Gazette, January 12, 2007

  9. National Reports and Studies

    1. ABA Formal Opinion 06-441, Ethical Obligations of Lawyers Who Represent Indigent Criminal Defendants When Excessive Caseloads Interfere, May 13, 2006.

    2. ABA Report on Gideon's Broken Promise, nationwide, 2004, and an ABA web site including an interactive map describing each state's system.

    3. ABA Report on Use of Contracts for Defense Services, opposing contracts awarded on basis of cost alone, 1985

    4. ABA "Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System," adopted by ABA House of Delegates, February 5, 2002

    5. Americans Consider Indigent Defense: Analysis of a National Study of Public Opinion, January, 2002

    6. Assigned Counsel Policies adopted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, May, 1997. Eight goals to guide NACDL, focusing on basic constitutional principles including the right of indigent defendants to quality representation.

    7. Expenditures for Indigent Defense Services, all states, 2002; Spangenberg Group.

    8. Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

    9. Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Governmental Contracts for Criminal Defense Services, containing guidelines on caseloads, compensation, support services and contract administration, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 1984.

    10. Index of National, State and Local Standards and Guidelines relating to Administration of Defense Services, Spangenberg Group, 1997.

    11. Making the Case: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Practices Positively Impact Clients, Justice Systems and Communites They Serve, Cait Clark and James Neuhard, Spring, 2005, published 17 St. Thomas L. Rev. 781.

    12. Model Contract for Public Defense Services, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 2000

    13. Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 1995.

    14. The Price of Justice: Money, Fairness and the Right to Counsel, Analysis of Focus Groups on Indigent Defense conducted for the Open Society Institute and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, by Belden Russonello & Stewart, September, 2000.

    15. Rates of Compensation for Court-Appointed Counsel in Non-Capital Felonies at Trial, Spangenberg Group, July, 2002.

    16. Rates of Compensation Paid to Court-Appointed Counsel in Non-Capital Felony Cases at Trial: A State By State Overview, Spangenberg Group, October, 2002.

    17. Report of the Indigent Defense Focus Group of the Office of Justice Programs and Bureau of Justice Assistance, November, 1997. Group reported a "strong consensus" that indigent defense has not received its "fair share" of funding when compared to other components of the justice system.

  10. National News Articles / Editorials / Press Releases

    1. Indigent Defense

    2. National Law Journal

    3. USA Today

  11. Public Defense Activities in Other States

    1. Overview:

    2. Georgia:

    3. Indiana:

    4. Louisiana:

    5. Massachusetts:

    6. Mississippi:

      • Assembly Line Justice - Mississippi's Indigent Defense Crisis, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, March, 2003.

    7. Montana:

    8. Nevada:

    9. New York:

    10. North Carolina:

    11. North Dakota:

    12. Texas:

    13. Virginia:

    14. Washington:
    Excellence in Michigan Appellate Assigned Advocacy and Defense Resources since 1969.

    645 Griswold | 3300 Penobscot Building | Detroit, MI 48226
    Phone: (313) 256-9833 | Fax: (313) 965-0372 | E-mail: webmaster@sado.org