by John J. Donohue and Eric A. Baldwin
STANFORD – The public-defender system in the United States is plagued by underfunding, overwhelming caseloads, and entrenched inequalities. Public defenders, who manage hundreds of cases, often lack the time and resources needed to provide the high-quality representation their clients deserve. This results in a justice system where the quality of one’s legal defense depends on one’s financial means, undermining the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.
While many Americans may believe they will never face a criminal investigation, one in three will have a criminal record at some point in their lives, and one in three has been arrested by age 23. When an arrest occurs, competent defense counsel is crucial to protecting the rights of the accused amid the complexities of the criminal-justice system. Most people charged with a crime are likely to be represented by public defenders, who handle 60-80% of state felony cases and nearly 90% of federal felony cases.
The right to legal assistance is guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, but the public-defender system was not established until 1963, when the Supreme Court ruled that all criminal defendants are entitled to legal representation, regardless of their ability to pay. This right was reinforced in 1984 by the Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, which established the standard for competent representation. According to the American Bar Association, lawyers must possess the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary” for effective counsel.
But despite these legal standards, public defenders in the US are under immense strain. Three-quarters manage caseloads far exceeding the limits set by professional standards, which recommend a maximum of 150 felony and 400 misdemeanor cases annually. These caps allow roughly 13.9 hours per felony case and 5.2 hours per misdemeanor, based on a 40-hour workweek.
The Rand Corporation recently updated these benchmarks, recommending 286 hours for serious felony cases such as murders punishable by life without parole and 248 hours per case for less severe murder charges. According to these guidelines, a public defender handling only non-life-sentence murder cases could take on just eight cases annually.
Harris County, Texas, underscores the urgency of the crisis. The Office of the Public Defender there shared data with us indicating that it is managing 6,540 active criminal cases, with 3,789 new cases opened in 2024 alone. These include 41 capital cases requiring 11,726 hours of legal work, 175 non-capital murder cases demanding 43,400 hours, and 368 sex-crime cases that require 61,456 hours.
With just 82 public defenders, the Harris County office’s total annual capacity is 191,360 hours. But the 4,052 misdemeanor cases alone require 82,336 hours of legal work, implying a shortfall of 7,558 hours. And this does not include sick leave, federal holidays, personal days, and vacations. Yet, despite the further strain on an already overburdened system, policymakers remain reluctant to increase funding.
Excessive caseloads significantly undermine the quality of defense. Recent research by Aviv Caspi shows that overburdened public defenders are less effective, finding a direct correlation between increasing caseloads and harsher sentences for convicted clients. According to his findings, clients of public defenders in the 25th percentile of caseloads receive sentences nearly twice as long as defendants represented by those in the 75th percentile. Similarly, a 2020 study found that higher public-defender caseloads increase the likelihood of pre-trial detention and lead to longer custodial sentences.
Recognizing these challenges, our own research explores an alternative approach that could transform the system. The collaborative defense model, which has gained traction in academic and policy circles in recent years, introduces the concept of “client advocates” who act as both quasi-translators – helping clients understand legal processes and requirements – and navigators, connecting defendants to services that address the root causes of their legal issues.
Partners for Justice, our research collaborators, pioneered the collaborative defense model, training and placing client advocates in 23 public-defender offices across the country. These advocates, while not attorneys or social workers, play a vital role by helping clients prepare for legal proceedings and linking them to social services.
Although evidence of the collaborative defense model’s impact remains limited, similar approaches have been studied in New York. One such study found that the introduction of holistic defense services in the Bronx reduced custodial sentences by 16% and shortened expected sentence lengths by nearly 25%, ultimately cutting 1.1 million incarceration days over ten years without compromising public safety. When the program began in 2000, the rate of violent crime in the Bronx was 1,297 per 100,000 people. By the time the study concluded in 2014, the rate had dropped 32%, to 883 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
To be sure, collaborative defense, on its own, will not reduce caseloads. But adopting it would allow public-defense offices to hire more interdisciplinary staff, enabling public defenders to delegate essential yet time-consuming tasks to a team better equipped to address the full range of clients’ needs. Moreover, by connecting clients with health and economic services, the model could help governments recognize the value of public-defender agencies, leading to increased funding, expanded staffing, and lower caseloads.
Our research is still in its early stages. But if the Bronx is any indication, the collaborative defense model could revolutionize public legal defense in the US. In places where it is already in place, its transformative impact is already a tangible reality.
That said, collaborative defense is more than just a model; it is a movement toward true justice, ensuring that all defendants receive the legal assistance they deserve. Early results suggest that this could help bring the US criminal-justice system closer to what the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black called the “noble ideal … of fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.”
John J. Donohue, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, is a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a fellow at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Eric A. Baldwin is a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford Law School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024.
www.project-syndicate.org
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
