The state that produced the landmark 1963 “Gideon” cases that guaranteed public defenders for poor criminal defendants is having a discussion of “civil Gideon,” according to the Tampa, Florida newspaper. “Just as the Gideon case led to public defenders for criminal defendants, proponents say public dollars should fund access to lawyers for low-income people in civil cases.” says the Tampa Tribune.
In a story about this years’ budget, the paper offers some background: “… llawmakers passed a law in 2002 to “enhance the availability of civil legal assistance to the poor.” But for the past four years, Gov. Rick Scott has decided against funding it — bringing to $7 million the total amount in legal aid he has cut from state appropriations.”
How to handle an election-year funding issue involving the labor-intensive courts system? First, expand it to a “two-year” plan to avoid the hard questions in the election cycle and then tie any increases to “reforms” to be identified later. As this weekend’s constitutionally mandated June 15 California budget deadline expires, that’s the status of hard-hit courts in Gov. Brown’s budget. Not always noted is that one of the ways to “tighten operating costs” is increasing the amount workers pay into their pension funds.
The Courthouse News is a go-to source for following the issue, especially with the focus on Los Angeles, home of the nation’s largest trial court where cutbacks have closed courthouses and forced long journeys to court.
For this years budget, The Courthouse News reports that “… Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen said the $160 million for the courts is part of a two-year strategy to stabilize court funding while the Judicial Council and the chief justice look for ways to tighten operating costs. Most of the additional funds will go toward paying court-employee pensions and benefits and backfilling a shortfall in filing-fee revenue.”
Here’s the latest for your “as much justice as you can afford” file: The Tulsa (OK) World reports on a trend for private trails to deal with divorce cases. The report, noting that “more than 400 divorce cases are filed each month in Tulsa County” says some dockets delay an outcome “for months,” which might not sound bad in places where divorces can take years. But one option is to opt for a private trial.
The World explains that “… both parties must agree to a private trial. If judges feel that request is appropriate, they will appoint a referee to run the private trial. Unlike the guided negotiation that occurs during a mediation, appointed referees hear evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law that the judges who appointed them adopt as their verdict. Both parties have the same right to appeal that they would if a district court tried the case.”
Benefits include a speedy trial and increased privacy because only the outcome, not the specifics, are public record. Others note that, given the legal costs of longer divorces, hiring the judge, jury and paying for court recorders can still be cheaper than the regular justice system. Read the story here.
CityWatch, an influential opinion, news and information website and newsletter in Los Angeles, has published the recent commentary by Courts Monitor publisher, Sara Warner. The piece, originally published on the Huffington Post’s national political page, argues that Democrats are tone deaf when it comes to the role that veterans play in asbestos bankruptcy trust issues.
Read it at CityWatch here.
Reflecting on the fact that many immigration detentions are civil, rather than criminal, actions, more than 100 jurisdictions across the United States have stopped enforcing “holds” issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE. The policy changes follow a federal court ruling in Oregon declaring such practices unconstitutional.
More than a dozen of the counties changing the practice are in California, including Los Angeles and San Diego, where authorities have stopped complying with the ICE detainer requests, reports the Orange County Register. The newspaper quotes Julia Harumi Mass, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California: “Detaining people based on suspected civil immigration violations without probable cause not only wastes scarce local public safety resources and contradicts our sense of fairness – it undeniably violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the Register report by Roxana Kopetman here