2000 annual report [Jan. 2001]

THE GEORGIA INDIGENT DEFENSE COUNCIL
2000 ANNUAL REPORT

Michael B. Shapiro Executive Director
January 1, 2001
Honorable Roy Barnes Governor, State of Georgia State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Governor Barnes:
Pursuant to Official Code of Georgia Annotated 17-12-35, enclosed please find the Annual Report of the activities of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.
I will let the divisional reports speak for themselves. As in years past, they show that the Council has continued to assist counties throughout Georgia in the implementation of the indigent defense delivery systems by offering specialized services including representation in cases involving the death penalty or mental health issues, assistance on appeals and other post-conviction matters, high quality and low cost professional education seminars, help with juvenile cases, and of course, funding subsidies.
In Fiscal Year 2001, our funding will directly affect more than 93% of the populace. We will distribute $4,890,000 in legislatively appropriated funds to 136 counties through our Grants to Counties program.1 That amount will be supplemented with an estimated $1,400,000 in interest gathered from clerks' and sheriffs' trust accounts. All told, nearly $6.3 million will be added to the funds allocated by the counties to provide attorneys for those who cannot afford representation.
In 1999, indigent defense statewide cost $40,591,424. Of this amount, state funds offset only 12.05% of the total cost of providing indigent defense services. The vast majority of the burden for providing the Constitutional right to counsel rests on the counties.
Our entire criminal justice system is at a crossroads. Our state and local decision makers who do not have first hand experience need to hear from those who do. One of the consequences of passing new, stiffer crime laws is expanding the class of people who will require criminal defense. Similarly, mandatory penalties result in more cases being tried to conclusion, rather than being disposed of with
1 In Fiscal Year 2001, Appling, Atkinson, Bulloch, Catoosa, Chattahoochee, Chattooga, Clinch, Dade, Effingham, Gordon, Hancock, Jackson, Jasper, Jenkins, Marion, Lanier, Screven, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Turner, Walker and Walton Counties elected, for various reasons, not to submit or to withdraw their applications for funding.

January 1, 2001 Page 2
the entry of a guilty plea. This places a tremendous burden on the entire criminal justice system. A system must grow to meet this need. That means not just more district attorneys, more judgeships and bigger prison budgets, but more indigent defense expenditures. Under current law the cost of criminal defense is borne largely by the counties, whereas judicial and prosecutorial funding is disproportionately made up of state dollars. These days criminal defense is a growth industry and the unpopularity of the job does not make this fact any less real.
In an effort to address these concerns and to help the counties reach the next level of services, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council embarked on a new course this past year. With significant changes and improvement desperately needed, we created a new Improvement Grants program that allocated surplus I.O.L.T.A. funding to help the counties establish new programming that dramatically improved the handling of their indigent cases. The program was so well received by the counties that thirty two counties sought more than $2 million in funding. Twenty-four counties received $400,000 in "seed" money for programs as varied as early intervention, caseload reduction, mental health specialty, public defender office enhancement, and technology. The Improvement Grants funding supplements the combined $6.3 million in Grants to Counties and Clerks' and Sheriffs' funding programs.
As we raise the bar that describes minimal indigent defense standards, we need to be mindful that the fiscal benefit of participating in the Grants to Counties subsidy program must exceed the cost of compliance. To that end, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council is seeking additional funding for the coming fiscal year. Our budget request is the smallest increase in five years. Of the $1.8 million we seek in additional funding, more than $1.7 million will directly benefit the counties: $1.2 million for the Grants to Counties subsidy program, and $538,000 for the Improvement Grants program. Of the remaining $68,000 in our budget package, $20,000 will fund ten statewide death penalty specific training seminars, required by the Supreme Court of Georgia's modification to the Unified Appeal procedure. These courses will be offered at no charge to attorneys willing to take on these difficult and timeconsuming cases.
We urge you to support these funding requests, and the activities of the Supreme Court of Georgia's recently named Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense.
On behalf of the Council and its staff, I look forward to working with you in the coming year.
Sincerely yours,
Michael B. Shapiro Executive Director

Remarks from the November 9, 2000 Statewide Symposium on Indigent Defense
"Our legal system is one of the main reasons for our greatness as a nation. But the cold hard reality is that far too many people face the possibility of an unjust outcome because they must attempt to navigate an often complicated legal system without the benefit of competent counsel."
- Hon. Roy L. Barnes Governor
"In order to improve our indigent defense system, we...see the need for five different approaches...
1. We must have high expectations in the area of indigent defense; 2. We must have standards for those who represent indigent defendants; 3. We must have adequate training throughout the State to attract the best and brightest to
this area and advocate that public service is a high calling as is representing defendants; 4. We must have the resources in order to address the problem; and 5. We must have some measure to determine how effective we are in providing
representation to indigent persons in this state."
- Hon. Robert Benham Chief Justice
"We set our sights on the embarrassing target of mediocrity. I guess that means about halfway. And that raises a question. Are we willing to put up with halfway justice? To my way of thinking, onehalf justice must mean one-half injustice, and one-half justice is no justice at all."
- Hon. Harold Clarke Former Chief Justice

Table of Contents
The State of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The History of Indigent Defense Since Gideon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Future Partnership Between The State And The Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Current State of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Public Defender Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Contract Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appointed Attorney or "Panel" Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Special Circumstances And Challenges in Juvenile Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Systemic Problems in The Criminal Justice System Impacting Its Effectiveness And The Rights of Indigent Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Recommendations For Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Facts on Local Indigent Defense Programs Receiving State Funds For Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Analysis of Indigent Defense Cases Calendar Year 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Statutory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Division Activities and Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appellate Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Governmental Relations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Juvenile Advocacy Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Mental Health Advocacy Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Multi-County Public Defender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Professional Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Georgia Indigent Defense Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Georgia Indigent Defense Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
State Funding of Indigent Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Comparison of State & Total Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Years 2000 & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Statewide Indigent Defense Costs Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Statewide Indigent Defense Caseloads Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Total Indigent Defense Costs Statewide versus State Funding Fiscal Years 1997 through 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Statewide Indigent Defense Delivery Systems in Georgia Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Criminal Justice Funding Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Judicial Branch Funding Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Georgia Indigent Defense Council
Grants to Counties Subsidy Program County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Award of Clerks' and Sheriffs' Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Future of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Prepared by the Georgia Indigent Defense Council 985 Ponce de Leon Avenue ! Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 894-2595 ! (800) 676-4432 Facsimile (404) 206-5154 ! Internet web site: www.gidc.com

The State of Indigent Defense in Georgia

The State of Indigent Defense in Georgia
"Indigent defense" is the term used to describe the provision of lawyers to represent poor people who are charged by the state with felonies or misdemeanors and the provision of lawyers to represent parties in juvenile court.
The History of Indigent Defense Since Gideon
Since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, indigent defense in Georgia has been provided at the county or judicial circuit level. There are two separate statutory frameworks for operating local indigent defense programs. The 1968 Criminal Justice Act places the responsibility with the Superior Court of a county. The 1979 Georgia Indigent Defense Act places the responsibility for operating indigent defense programs with local indigent defense committees appointed by the Superior Court, the County Commission and the local Bar Association. Programs with indigent defense committees established under the 1979 Act are eligible for state funds distributed by the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.
Even though the Georgia Indigent Defense Act was signed into law in 1979, state funding was first appropriated in 1989. Currently, $4,890,000 of state funds is appropriated to assist eligible counties with the costs of indigent defense. The Office of the Multi-County Public Defender is appropriated $1,003,227 which is used to assist counties with death penalty cases. The Council has distributed an additional $1,420,000 this past fiscal year from the Clerks' and Sheriffs' Trust Account Program. The Council's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request of $7,698,590 would provide important financial assistance to the counties for indigent defense.
The Future Partnership Between The State And The Counties
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council has committed to having the state and counties share the financial burden of providing indigent defense. While the Council had hoped to accomplish equal participation of both the counties and the state by 1999, we realize that it will take longer than originally anticipated. The total statewide cost of indigent defense currently approaches $41,000,000, and the costs are expected to increase. It is, therefore, more important than ever to receive increased financial assistance from the State.
The Current State of Indigent Defense in Georgia
There are three basic program models for indigent defense - a public defender office, a contract defender program, and an appointed attorney program. At present, of the 136 counties participating under the Indigent Defense Act, 20 counties provide indigent defense through a public defender program, 56 have contract defenders (attorneys in private practice who contract to provide representation to indigent persons) and 60 counties utilize an appointed or a panel attorney program as
3

their sole means of providing representation for indigent persons. Several counties use more than one type of program to provide representation for indigent clients.
Public Defender Programs
Public Defender offices around the state are seriously under-funded. Their funding has not kept pace with the increase in caseloads that they are expected to assume. This combination of increased workload and insufficient funding has had several consequences which jeopardize both the effectiveness of the representation provided and the operation of the criminal justice system. Offices have had to cut back on the types of cases they can handle, and they have been forced to reduce the number of bond and preliminary hearings they can attend. Inadequate funding and rising caseloads cause an unreasonable burden to fall upon courtroom attorneys preparing cases for disposition. The number of ineffectiveness claims against public defenders has risen, court appointed (private) lawyers often must be substituted for public defenders, and cases must be repeatedly continued until public defenders can be prepared. The independence of public defenders and their ability to provide effective representation without political interference continues to be a principle which requires safeguarding.
Contract Defenders
Contracting with private attorneys to provide indigent defense has become more popular in the past few years with several court appointed programs switching to contracts to provide representation for a county's entire indigent caseload. There are several distinct advantages to this type of program, but one of the most serious disadvantages is that, if not properly structured, it can create a financial disincentive to provide full and effective representation. For this reason, organizations such as the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers discourage contract defender programs.
Appointed Attorney or "Panel" Programs
Appointing from a list of private attorneys is one of the most widely utilized methods of providing representation and has some of the best and worst results. If experienced private attorneys are recruited and adequately compensated and if they regularly take advantage of professional education seminars and comply with the State Standards and Guidelines on providing representation, a court appointed attorney program can be one of the best. However, in programs where lawyers are mandated to take cases regardless of their experience and desire to practice criminal law, where they are not compensated sufficiently to even cover their office overhead, and where they do not respond in a timely fashion to an appointment, the adequacy of the representation and the integrity of the entire program is called into question.
4

The Special Circumstances And Challenges in Juvenile Court Representation in juvenile court has its own set of special problems in addition to those already discussed. Fifty percent of the children alleged to be delinquent are unrepresented in juvenile court because they are either poorly informed of their right to representation, discouraged from exercising their right, or representation is waived by them or family members. Many attorneys appearing in juvenile court are inadequately trained in the specialized procedures of the court and use it as a training ground for cases in the superior court. In recognition of these chronic conditions, in July of 1996 the Georgia Indigent Defense Council established the Juvenile Advocacy Division which works with attorneys and the counties with the growing number of cases in juvenile court, as well as with the difficulties associated with children being tried as adults in Superior Court.
5

Systemic Problems in The Criminal Justice System Impacting Its Effectiveness And The Rights of Indigent Persons

Various systemic and structural practices of the criminal justice system contribute significantly to the problem of effective representation. Some of these practices are within the indigent defense system itself but many are outside of the ability of a local indigent defense program to affect. Improvements are needed in both the indigent defense system and in other aspects of our judicial system to truly achieve a justice system which is fair and provides equal justice to all of Georgia's citizens.



One of the most serious problems within the state is the infrequency of preliminary hearings.

Many criminal cases would benefit from a preliminary hearing which allows the defense and

prosecution to evaluate a case. A hearing provides the judge with an opportunity, early on, to

decide if probable cause exists to continue holding a person in custody. The failure to have

preliminary hearings in all cases adds to the problems of overcrowded jails and often delays the

fair and just resolution of charges.



The absence of an organized indigent defense program in some counties means that there is no

one with the sole responsibility or interest in assuring that timely and competent representation is

provided. In these counties, the assignment of cases is handled on an ad hoc or part-time basis

by a person or department that has different, sometimes even conflicting, responsibilities.



Some programs do not appoint attorneys on a timely basis. This relegates persons arrested to

unnecessary delays before their cases are considered. Often, without meaningful, early

representation, there is no opportunity for a bond to be set, resulting in unnecessary costs to the

counties for housing defendants.



Delay in the formal prosecution of cases is a serious problem. Defendants often sit in jail for

months waiting for the prosecution to take their case to the grand jury for indictment. These

delays, which are out of the control of the defense, substantially increase expenditures for

counties which must continue to pay the costs of housing inmates in county jails long after cases

should be ready for disposition through trial or a guilty plea.



The court appointed attorney programs are weakened and undermined by the loss of

experienced attorneys and the mandatory participation of attorneys with neither training nor

interest in criminal practice. The compensation for appointed attorneys changed in 1999 for the

first time in a decade. Responding to a February 1996, request by the Georgia Indigent

Defense Council, in March of 1999 the Supreme Court of Georgia raised the hourly rates of

compensation from $35 per hour for out-of-court work and $45 per hour for in-court work to

$45 and $60, respectively. A 1999 study by the University of Georgia's Legal Aid Clinic

confirmed an earlier State Bar of Georgia study showing that overhead in small law offices

statewide averages more than $52 per hour. The $45 and $60 per hour figures are modest, but

6

essential if experienced attorneys are to remain a part of the indigent defense system. Unless the attorney fees continue to be adjusted to take into account current costs of operating a law practice, we place a tremendous burden for providing indigent defense services in an extremely small segment of the profession. The obligation to provide indigent representation is a Constitutional one, and the cost for this legal requirement should be a societal one. While many attorneys are willing to provide their professional services at a substantially reduced rate, it is not appropriate to compensate these lawyers at less than their own overhead.



In addition to hourly rates that do not even cover their hourly overhead costs, lawyers'

compensation had often been capped at unreasonably low levels. This created a serious conflict

of interest for the attorney who could not afford to spend uncompensated time on appointed

cases and at the risk of ignoring clients who had paid for representation. Unreasonably low

costs have been a major reason for the loss of many attorneys from the appointed lists. In

response to these concerns, in November of 1999 the Supreme Court of Georgia abolished fee

caps in indigent cases.



Striking a balance between attorneys handling cases on an hourly basis and those who review

these bills for professional services rendered (judges, Indigent Defense Administrator and

Tripartite Committee members), in November of 1999, the Supreme Court of Georgia began

requiring that all invoices be itemized, and that any reduction of the charges be similarly specific.

This safeguard helps to assure that accurate bills are submitted, while narrowing the focus of

any billing inquiry to limited and clearly noted areas. It preserves the counties' right to reduce

bills that are determined to be inaccurate, but prevents an arbitrary or unexplained decrease,

thus eliminating concerns that bills have been reduced solely to adjust the "bottom line," and not

because of time keeping or other errors.



A continuing problem is the inequitable compensation between prosecutors and defense

attorneys. A survey conducted by the Georgia Indigent Defense Council in 1999 revealed a

striking 34% salary gap between District Attorneys and Public Defenders. The study showed

that Chief Assistant District Attorneys are paid at rates more than five (5%) percent above

those received by lead defenders. These attorneys are expected to have similar skills and

abilities, yet we do not compensate them accordingly. Unless and until we close this salary gap,

we will continue to suffer high rates of turnover in defense offices and fail to hire the "best and

the brightest."



The salary survey also noted a substantial staffing gap. For every two attorneys in a Public

Defender's office, there are three in a District Attorney's office. More alarming, for every

support staff member (secretary, paralegal, investigator, etc.) of Public Defender's office, there

are three in a District Attorney's office. An obvious conclusion is that Public Defenders must

work harder than their prosecutorial counterparts since they lack the vital support staff

assistance. Once again, we must address and close this gap.

7

Recommendations For Change



Increased financial assistance is sorely needed to assist counties with this tremendously

expensive component of the state's judicial system.



Public Defenders should be compensated at the same rate as their counterparts in District

Attorney offices, and disparities in caseloads should be reflected only in staffing levels and not

in compensation.



Public Defender offices must be properly staffed and equipped to match the increased

caseloads and demands of the judicial system's high volume processing of cases.



Adequately compensated and trained attorneys are needed for contract defender and court

appointed attorney programs (just as they are needed in public defender offices); quality of

representation must be balanced with the expense of providing indigent defense services.



Preliminary hearings should be held for all in-custody defendants within ten days of their

incarceration.



At the request of defense counsel, require an early pre-trial conference between the defense

and the prosecution to determine if a guilty plea or other non-trial disposition of a case is

possible; perhaps a plea to an accusation, thus relieving the pressure on the grand juries.



Specially trained attorneys are needed to provide representation of children in juvenile courts

and to provide representation of the mentally ill in criminal cases.



The system must be willing to demand more of court appointed attorneys and give them the

time, support, and compensation necessary to attract and keep them in indigent defense

programs.



Support from other participants in the criminal justice system is needed, including:

(1) "open file" policies of District Attorneys

(2) both District Attorneys and the courts should promulgate realistic trial calendars which list a reasonable number of cases for a lawyer to prepare for trial during any one trial week

(3) prosecutors must resist the temptation to "overcharge" a case and only charge defendants with violations of statutes which can reasonably be proved at trial

(4) willingness of prosecutors to enter into negotiated pleas which will encourage the nontrial disposition of many cases

8

Facts on Local Indigent Defense Programs Receiving State Funds For Fiscal Year 2001



136 of Georgia's 159 counties, covering over 93% of the population, applied for state funds for

local indigent defense programs.



These 136 counties spent $40,591,424 in 1999, as compared to $36,880,000 in 1998,

$33,791,000 in 1997, $31,500,000 in 1996, $30,000,000 in 1995 and $25,000,000 in 1994,

representing a sixty two (62%) percent increase over six years or an average annual increase of

more than ten (10%) percent.



Attorneys in these counties provided representation to over 167,000 defendants with criminal

charges, juveniles charged with delinquency, and children and adults in deprivation or

termination of parental rights cases.



20 of the counties have full-time public defender programs.



56 of the counties have contract defenders (attorneys in private practice who contract to

provide representation to indigent persons in criminal and/or juvenile proceedings).



60 counties utilize appointed or panel attorney programs as their sole means of providing

representation for indigent persons.



In 1999, the average cost per case was $294.86, as compared with $216.47 in 1998, $204.47

in 1997, $213.40 in 1996.



In 1999, the average cost per resident was $6.71 compared with $5.69 in 1998, $5.22 in

1997, and $5.13 in 1996. Of the $6.71, only 81 cents came from state taxes, with the balance

being paid from county taxes and interest generated on certain clerks' and sheriffs' escrow

accounts.



In 1999, the state contributed only twelve and five one-hundredths (12.05%) percent of the

dollars needed to support indigent defense, as compared to eleven (11%) percent in 1998.



In 1999, the total cost of providing indigent defense went up more than ten (10%) percent,

while the state portion of indigent defense funds increased by twelve and two-thirds (12 2/3%)

percent, reflecting the first time in recent years that state funding increased faster than county

indigent defense expenses. Comparatively, in 1998 total indigent defense expenses were up

more than nine (9%) percent, while with the addition of $240,000 in the supplemental state

budget, state funding increased only seven and one-half (7 %) percent for indigent defense

expenses.

9



In 1999, interest on Clerks' and Sheriffs' trust account funding was up more than four and one-

half (4 %) percent, to a record $1.42 million. Clerks' and Sheriffs' has modestly, but

steadily, risen over the last four years, and is expected to continue this pattern with the inclusion

of interest generated on cash bonds held in the Probate Courts with a change in the Georgia

Code effective July 1, 2000.



State funding for prosecution costs is comparable to county funding for indigent defense, while

state funding for prosecution costs is nearly seven and one-half (7 ) times state funding for

indigent defense costs.2



State funding for indigent defense amounts to only three one-hundredths of one (.03%) percent

of the total state budget. Comparatively, the Department of Corrections receives more than six

(6%) percent of the current year's budget.



Current law office overhead statewide averages more than $52 per hour, assuming 2,000

working and payable hours each year.



The Supreme Court of Georgia's"Guidelines for the Operation of Local Indigent Defense

Programs" provide that attorneys should be compensated at no less than $45 per hour for out-

of-court work and $60 per hour for in-court work.

Based on information reported by the local programs for Calendar Year 1999

2 Combined state allocations for District Attorneys and the Prosecuting Attorneys Council exceed $36,000,000; while county expenditures for indigent defense services were approximately $40,591,424, of which $4,890,000 was state funding, with the balance of $35,701,424 coming from county funding and interest generated on certain clerks' and sheriffs' escrow accounts.
10

Comparison of Public Defender and Prosecutorial Office Salaries and Staffing Levels
(information current as of March, 1999)

Average Salaries of Specific Prosecution/Defense Personnel

100

90 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Public Defender or District AttornEenytry Level Assistant

Senior Secretary

Chief Assistant

Chief Investigator

Job Title

Public Defenders: District Attorneys:

Salary in Thousands

Full-Time Personnel

Average Staffing Levels
25
20 15
10
5 0
Attorneys Support Staff

Public Defenders: District Attorneys:

For every two attorneys in a Public Defender's office, there are three in a District Attorney's office. For every support staff member (secretary, paralegal, investigator, etc.) of Public Defender's office, there are three in a District Attorney's office.
11

Analysis of Indigent Defense Cases Calendar Year 1999

30.7%

0.1% 0.5%
8.7%

20.3%

39.7%

Felony Misdemeanor Probation Revocation Appeals Other Juvenile (All Types)

Felony Misdemeanor Probation Revocation Appeals Other Juvenile (All Types)
Total

66,420 33,959 14,624
870 215 51,409
167,497

12

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Mission Statement
The mission of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council is to assure the provision of representation and to improve the quality of representation for indigent persons who are charged in the criminal courts or who are parties to actions in the juvenile courts of Georgia. The Council accomplishes its mission by:
(1) the distribution of state appropriations and other funds through grants to the counties; (2) technical and administrative assistance to local indigent defense programs; (3) research, advice, and consultation to attorneys representing indigent persons; (4) professional education seminars and conferences; (5) direct representation in selected cases; and, (6) pilot projects established at the specific request of the judiciary.
15

Georgia Indigent Defense Council
Goals
The Council seeks to:
(1) increase state funding for indigent defense
(2) provide low cost unique professional education seminars in all areas of indigent criminal and juvenile practice
(3) assist attorneys handling indigent cases with legal expertise and research, expert witness identification, and familiarity with specialized areas of the law through an Indigent Defense Resource Center
(4) provide prompt, aggressive and effective representation to defendants represented directly by the Council
(5) assist attorneys and courts with mentally ill defendants, with release hearings for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, and with cases where the defendant has been found incompetent to stand trial
(6) sponsor an annual statewide indigent defense conference
(7) promptly respond to requests for assistance from jail inmates, communicate with the local indigent defense programs or attorneys, and direct defendants to an appropriate resource
(8) monitor and evaluate the local programs providing indigent defense and to assist them with improving the representation provided to indigent persons
(9) work in partnership with legal organizations to improve Georgia's criminal justice system
(10) cooperate with all judicial branch agencies on ways to improve the criminal justice system
(11) develop innovative projects to assist with the provision of indigent defense
(12) improve the quality of representation received by defendants facing the death penalty through direct representation, co-counseling, and assistance to local attorneys
16

Georgia Indigent Defense Council
Statutory Framework
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council was created by an act of the state legislature in 1979 (O.C.G.A. 17-12-30). The Council is composed of 15 persons3 appointed by the Supreme Court of Georgia: one active member of the State Bar of Georgia selected from each of the ten judicial administrative districts of the state, three non-lawyers selected from the state at large, and two additional members, one of whom shall be a member of a metropolitan county governing authority and the other a member of a non-metropolitan county governing authority.
The Council's four statutory purposes and duties are:
1) to administer funds provided by the state to support local indigent defense programs;
2) to recommend uniform guidelines within which local indigent defense programs will operate;
3) to provide local programs and attorneys who represent indigent persons, technical and research assistance, clinical and training programs, and other administrative services;
4) to prepare budget reports and management information required for implementation of the Georgia Indigent Defense Act.
The Council maintains a close working relationship with the State Bar of Georgia, the Council of Superior Court Judges; the Council of State Court Judges; the Council of Juvenile Court Judges; the Council of Magistrate Court Judges; the Council of Municipal Court Judges; the Council of Probate Court Judges; the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia; the Governor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; the Governor's Children and Youth Coordinating Council; the Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse of the Department of Human Resources; the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council; the State Department of Law; District Court Administrators and the criminal defense bar. The Council receives a substantial grant from the Georgia Bar Foundation and has been awarded funds under contract by the Governor's Children and Youth Coordinating Council and under grants from the Governor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
3 A listing of the members of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council appears later in this Annual Report.
17

Georgia Indigent Defense Council

Statement of Revenue and Expenditures

O.C.G.A. 17-12-35 requires that: (a) The Georgia Indigent Defense Council shall prepare annually a report of its activities
in order to provide the General Assembly, the Governor, and the Supreme Court with an accurate description and accounting of the preceding year's expenditures and accomplishments. Each tripartite committee shall report such data to the council as is necessary to compile the report.

(b) The council shall also provide to the General Assembly, the Governor, and the Supreme Court a detailed analysis of all grants and funds, whether public or private, applied for or granted, together with how and in what manner the same are to be utilized and expended.

Revenue

Legislative Appropriations: Grants to Counties Funding Subsidies Multicounty Public Defender

$4,890,000 $1,003,227

Georgia Bar Foundation (I.O.L.T.A.)

$1,854,679

Clerks' and Sheriffs' Trust Accounts

$1,420,637

Children and Youth Coordinating Council Contract

$12,500

Byrne Grant (Augusta Circuit Video-Conferencing)4

$47,468

Total Revenue 5

$9,228,511

4 The 2000 Edward Byrne Memorial Drug Control & System Improvement Grant was the only grant that the Georgia Indigent Defense Council applied for during the applicable period of this Annual Report. Of the $47,468, $35,601 was federal funding and $11,867 was matching funding.
5 Additional revenue is realized from professional education seminar registration fees, however these funds are used to defray expenses associated with those seminars. Thus no "gain" of revenue is realized from these funds.
18

Expenditures Grants to Counties Funding Subsidies Clerks' and Sheriffs' Funding Subsidies Improvement Grants6 Multicounty Public Defender Operations Georgia Indigent Defense Council Operations7 Senate Bill 440 ("Seven Deadly Sins") Tracking Project Byrne Grant (Augusta Circuit Video-Conferencing) Total Expenditures

$4,890,000 $1,420,637
$401,000 $1,003,227 $1,854,679
$12,500 $47,468 $9,629,511

In Calendar Year 2000, the State Department of Audits, at the request of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee, conducted a "performance audit" of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. The report of that "performance audit" contains a more detailed analysis of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's revenue and expenditures.

6 Improvement Grants funding was allocated from prior years' Georgia Bar Foundation (I.O.L.T.A.) revenues.
7 Georgia Indigent Defense Council operations exclusive of Multicounty Public Defender operations.
19

Division Activities and Updates

Appellate Division
The Division's Mission
The Appellate Division serves five broad purposes:
1. It is a source of consultation, advice, and assistance for appointed lawyers in the field who have encountered and identified potential issues in cases they are defending which they want to plant, preserve, perfect, and advance on appeal. Much of this service represents early intervention which begins "over the wire" through the electronic mail list-server maintained by the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (GACDL), as well as through direct inquiries to Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Much of it also derives from the GIDC "Bring Your File" program where, after sending in pertinent documentary materials on a case, appointed counsel come to the office to discuss the case and to consult with several of the Council's professional staff. This is a particularly valuable service to young lawyers, solo practitioners, and those with relatively little criminal defense or appellate experienceand, of course, to their clients as well.
2. It provides direct assistance to appointed counsel during the appellate process itself particularly counsel with relatively limited appellate experience. This sort of assistance ranges from advice and consultation, through legal research and brief-editing, on up to writing briefs and joining as appellate co-counsel.
3. In selected cases which raise issues which are novel, interesting, or important to indigent defense, and especially those where it is appropriate to present an "institutional" viewpoint somewhat separate from the individual defendant's, the Division files amicus curiae briefs. It often does this jointly with other interested organizations (such as GACDL) and frequently at the request of the appellate courts which want important issues clearly briefed.
4. The Division assists other GIDC divisions in appellate litigation which they generate or in which they have an interest.
5. Finally, in conjunction with the Council's Professional Education Division, and drawing on a number of experienced appellate practitioners who volunteer their time, the Appellate Division provides periodic training throughout the State to attorneys interested in appellate or other post-conviction practice. This function results in cost-saving to the counties since these continuing legal education seminars increase the numbers of skilled appellate practitioners in Georgia at virtually no cost to local programs.
23

Litigation During the Last Year
First, to wrap up "old business" from the 1999 Annual Report:
The GIDC filed an amicus brief in Parks v. McClung, 271 Ga. 795, 524 S.E.2d 718 (1999), a habeas case challenging the procedures in the Sumter State Court for exercising or waiving the right to counsel in cases where the accused was inclined to plead guilty. With two of the seven Justices dissenting, the State Supreme Court affirmed a denial of relief.
In collaboration with the Multi-County Public Defender, the Division filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. State, 272 Ga. 354, 526 S.E.2d 549 (2000), on the issue of whether the trial courts had any discretion at all, in a proper case, to permit the defense to offer expert testimony on the considerations bearing on the reliability vel non of eyewitness identifications. Overruling a number of prior cases, the Court ruled that in certain circumstances trial courts do have such discretion. Although Johnson himself did not benefit from this holding, the Court established a valuable guideline for other cases.
The State Supreme Court also ruled in our favor in Brewer v. State, 271 Ga. 605, 523 S.E.2d 18 (1999), another amicus case. It agreed that, in the case of a child-victim, in order for an offense of aggravated sodomy to be distinct from aggravated child molestation (which carries a lesser term), actual force is an essential element of the offense and it cannot be imputed (like the lack of an effective consent) simply from the age of a child-victim.
As noted in the last report, the Division also sponsored an amicus brief, chiefly authored by private, volunteer counsel interested in the appellate experience, in Hernandez v. State, 244 Ga.App. 874, 537 S.E.2d 149 (2000). This was an appeal by the Douglas public defender from an order overruling a plea in bar. The plea in bar followed a declaration of mistrial which the State had requested when the defense sought to explore the parole-eligibility considerations behind a codefendant's decision to turn state's evidence, a line of interrogation which also necessarily conveyed to the jury the mandatory, draconian sentence which the accused himself was facing. The result was a dramatic ruling: the Court ruled that the line of cross-examination was entirely appropriate, that the declaration of a mistrial was error, and that any retrial would be constitutional error as a violation of due process. This ruling is important for several reasons. It makes it clear that recent mandatory sentencing and parole ineligibility provisions enacted into state law represent a two-way street, that they affect the value of the state's own witnesses who have agreed to "turn state's evidence," and that the sentencing and parole ineligibility consequences an accused faces may properly go before the jury in certain circumstances.
At the time of the last report, the State Supreme Court had granted certiorari in two cases in which the Appellate Division had joined appointed counsel as co-counsel, Grant v. State, 272 Ga. 213, 272 S.E.2d 512 (2000), and Busch v. State, 271 Ga. 591, 523 S.E.2d 21 (1999). The Court ruled
24

favorably in both cases. In the former, the State essentially confessed error and the conviction was reversed for the trial court's failure to administer the jury oath. In the latter, a majority of the Court construed the statute requiring consecutive terms for the use of a firearm during the commission of multiple felonies (OCGA 16-11-106[b]) nonetheless to permit several firearms terms to be served concurrently with one another.
Turning to "new" cases, the Appellate Division joined appointed counsel on the briefs in two juvenile cases: In re CSG, 241 Ga.App. 37, 525 S.E.2d 106 (1999), and In re EGW, __ Ga.App. __, 534 S.E.2d 869 (2000), but neither appeal was successful.
The Division filed an amicus brief in Carswell v. State, 244 Ga.App. 516, 534 S.E.2d 568 (2000), addressing the points on which the reversal turnedthe trial court's failure to appoint counsel prior to arraignment and the immunity of such an error from any harmlessness inquiry. The State's application for a writ of certiorari is pending. Similarly, it filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals in Sirmans v. State, 244 Ga.App. 252, 534 S.E.2d 862 (2000), a case which presented a number of interesting "plain view" search and seizure issues which probably could have arisen only in the piney woods of rural South Georgia. Although Sirmans won partial relief in the Court of Appeals on a sentencing issue, the Division joined his pro bono local counsel to seek a writ of certiorari on the Fourth Amendment issues. That application is still pending.
At the request of the State Supreme Court, the Division also appeared for the GIDC as counsel for the appellee in Ray v. Jacobs, 272 Ga. 760, 534 S.E.2d 418 (2000). This was a pro se mandamus action brought by an indigent State prisoner against the Parole Board, successfully challenging in the Superior Court parole reconsideration set-offs longer than those authorized at the time of the crime as violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause. By the time this case was docketed, however, the United States Supreme Court had resolved the same issue adversely in Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000), and the State Supreme Court reversed the grant of relief.
In conjunction with GACDL, the Division also filed an amicus brief in Karpowicz v. Hyles, __ Ga.App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (No. A00A1731, 28 November 2000). This was an unusual case, a civil case for damages brought by an aggrieved witness/complainant against a defense lawyer who had successfully represented the man she accused of rape. The complainant charged that the defense lawyer had violated her right of privacy, when in the course of his representation of his client, he secured by subpoena privileged mental health records which he used in the defense. Although the lawyer involved was retained, the case had obvious bearing on the potential liability of any defense counsel, including those serving by appointment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the lawyer on the basis that he had performed within his professional duties to his client and owed no duty to the complaining witness.
The Appellate Division is involved in several cases which are still pending. One, State v. Shannon Moss, is unusual because it is still in the trial court, Franklin Superior. It is a murder
25

prosecution brought against a young woman who prematurely bore twins, one of whom allegedly died at childbirth from her prenatal drug ingestion. In conjunction with GACDL and the ACLU of Georgia, the Division filed an amicus brief supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment because Georgia law does not sanction criminal liability for a mother's personal conduct which incidentally injures her fetus. The motion is still pending.
The Appellate Division and MHAD also joined the Georgia Indigent Legal Services as counsel in Hogan v. Nagel, Ga. Supreme Court No. S00A1537. This is an appeal by the State from an order permitting a person involuntarily committed to the Department of Human Resources after a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" to seek relief on habeas corpus and not exclusively in the committing court.
The Division has also filed an amicus brief in an appeal taken by the State, seeking to defend a grant of habeas relief which a pro se prisoner had secured on the ground that his probation revocation rested upon a violation of his right to confrontation, Williams v. Lawrence, Ga. Supreme Court No. ___.
As it did in Sirmans v. State, supra, but without previously filing amicus briefs, the Appellate Division joined local counsel on applications for writs of certiorari in two cases which the Court of Appeals had resolved adversely: Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197 (2000), and Martin v. State, __ Ga.App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (No. A00A2458, 3 August 2000). The former was a consensual sodomy conviction secured prior to the State Supreme Court's opinion in Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E.2d 18 (1998), which held that the statute was an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy in certain circumstances. The conviction was affirmed thereafter, however, on findings of fact and applications of the law made by the courts and never submitted to the jury, which Mauk asserted violated his rights to due process and to trial by jury. A divided State Supreme Court denied certiorari; a long-shot application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari is still pending.
In Martin, the Court of Appeals sua sponte dismissed an appeal which had already once been reinstated by a writ of habeas corpus. It did so on the basis of a new rule, which it regarded as "jurisdictional," which required that certain action be taken in the trial court within 30 days of the habeas order. The Court, however, had not even announced the new rule by the time the deadline had passed in Martin's case. The application for certiorari challenges the new rule itself, as well as its retroactive application.
Finally and most recently, the Division took over as appellate counsel and filed an application for review in Lockett v. Williams, Ga. Supreme Court No. S01H0312. The basic issue in this case is whether a young, mentally challenged woman intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty, on an adequately explored factual basis, to a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter for the perinatal death during unattended childbirth. A fascinating feature of this case was the discovery of a missing page
26

from the autopsy report, which was not (and yet is not) a part of the record, indicating that the State's own forensic physician was unable to say whether the child died as the result of any intentional actwhich essentially means that the State could not even show that a crime had been committed. This case thus not only presents some important legal issues, it is very likely to be a case of a miscarriage of justice and of actual innocence.
27

Governmental Relations Division
Reflecting the nature of its work more accurately, the former Compliance Division has been renamed the Governmental Relations Division. The name change is more than cosmetic, as the Governmental Relations Division handles functions much more diverse than merely assisting counties in complying with the Supreme Court of Georgia's "Guidelines for the Operation of Local Indigent Defense Programs."
The Division serves seven broad purposes: 1) it administers State indigent defense funding, including the preparation of the annual funding application, the receipt and analysis of data contained in returned applications, 2) it serves as the liaison with the members of the Georgia General Assembly, including petitioning the Legislature for the appropriation of additional funds and consultation on proposed changes to the criminal code, 3) it manages the Improvement Grants program, 4) it applies for grants from federal, state and non-for-profit organizations to assist local defense programs when appropriate, 5) it assists all participating counties with issues specific to counties' local programs when appropriate, 6) it responds to requests from jail inmates,8 and 7) it coordinates indigent defense related events, symposia and meetings for the Council.
The Division will continue to provide the same services as before, including processing Grants to Counties applications, and correlating the data gathered through that process, distributing Grants to Counties and Clerks' & Sheriffs' funding, and handling grievances lodged by indigent defendants, but will also place greater emphasis on additional services, including securing new funding for the provision of local indigent defense services. One example of this support was the creation of Improvement Grants to supplement the more traditional Grants to Counties. These new grants are helping twentyfour counties implement new programming ranging from mental health specialists to early intervention coordinators. A second example is the securing, for the first time ever in Georgia, of a Byrne Grant for indigent defense purposes.
The Division change brings with it a new Division Director, Sarah Smith. As the Director, Ms. Smith will focus on procuring federal, state and private grants for indigent defense programming, and serve as GIDC's legislative liaison. Ms. Smith has several years experience in both writing and administering grants. She is currently working with the Mental Health Advocacy Division to write a grant application for the Mental Health Court Pilot Project in DeKalb County.
Fiscal Year 2001 Grant to Counties Funding Applications
On August 11, 2000, at their regular quarterly meeting, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council approved all 136 counties that applied for FY 2001 Grants to Counties funding. Several counties have
8 In Calendar Year 2000, the Governmental Relations Division handled nearly 700 inquiries from jail and prison inmates.
28

been asked to supply additional information in support of their applications, but there will be no delay in any counties' funding as all information needed for the funding formula has been received.

The allocations through Grants to Counties for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 are:

State Appropriation Clerks & Sheriffs Total allocated to counties:

$4,890,000.00 $1,420,637.21 $6,310,637.21

The Indigent Defense Council was pleased to welcome Berrien County into the program this year as well as welcome Coffee County back to the program. As always, our goal is to have all 159 Georgia Counties participate in our funding program. The twenty three counties that do not participate are:
Appling, Atkinson, Bulloch, Catoosa, Chattahoochee, Chattooga, Clinch, Dade, Effingham, Gordon, Hancock, Jackson, Jasper, Jenkins, Marion, Lanier, Screven, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Turner, Walker and Walton Counties

Byrne Grant

On July 28, 2000, GIDC received notice from the Governor of his approval of a 2000 Edward Byrne Memorial Drug Control & System Improvement Grant. The Georgia Indigent Defense Council, in coordination with the Augusta Judicial Circuit, applied last May for $47,468 to establish video conferencing links between the Augusta Judicial Circuit Indigent Defense Office located in Augusta, Georgia; the Richmond County Jail; the Burke County Jail; and the Columbia County Jail. These links will allow Indigent Defense staff and appointed attorneys to screen, interview & consult with inmates in each of the three jails.

GIDC and the Augusta Judicial Circuit applied for this grant in order to reduce the travel time and increase the efficiency of the Indigent Defense Office staff and the appointed attorneys who represent clients housed in each of the jails. The travel time involved in visiting remote jail facilities is extremely inefficient for initial screening and short consultations. Video-conferencing maximizes the useful time of indigent defense personnel, while reducing the significant security risks associated with entry and exit from these jails.

Legislative Changes in Fiscal Year 2000-2001

During the last legislative session, there was a change to O.C.G.A. 15-6-76 "Clerks' and Sheriffs' Interest" statutes. This code section contains the core language, and applies to the Superior Courts. Code Sections 15-7-49 and 15-10-240 make that language applicable to the State and Magistrate Courts. Finally, 15-16-27 covers the Sheriffs.

29

The first three statutes require that certain funds be held in interest bearing accounts, with interest remitted to the Georgia Indigent Defense Council unless it has been allocated to one of the parties. The last statute, and the one most applicable to many of the Probate Courts, requires the Sheriff to place cash bonds into an interest bearing account, again with interest remitting to the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.

This change amended Article 1 of Chapter 9 of Title 15 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to probate courts, so as to provide that certain clerks of probate court shall deposit cash bonds transferred into the court registry from the sheriff into interest-bearing trust accounts; to provide that interest from such funds shall be remitted to the Georgia Indigent Defense Council for distribution to the counties pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 12 of Title 17; to provide for the remittance of certain information; to provide for exemptions; to provide an effective date; to provide for applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

GIDC Budget Request For Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Georgia General Assembly

With the approval of the Supreme Court, GIDC is requesting a total increase of $1,736,650 for the counties in the upcoming legislative session. This includes:

<

$537,936 to continue GIDC's new Improvement Grants Program., and

<

$1,198,714 to increase the Grants to Counties subsidies to the counties from 12.05%

to 15% of actual 1999 expenditures.

Total expenditures for providing indigent defense services in Georgia increased an alarming 10.06% (from $36.8 million to $40.6 million) last year. While these costs have risen over the last several years, this is the largest single-year increase in recent memory. Current numbers show that there were 167,497 reported indigent defense cases in Georgia in 1999. The total state-side number is even higher, as only 136 of Georgia's 159 counties currently participate in the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's Grants to Counties program. This means that there are additional, un-reported, indigent cases in the 23 non-participating counties (15 of whom have never participated).

The current allocation of state and local funding continues to be a hardship on counties. The state currently funds only 12.05% ($4,890,000) of the total expenses, leaving the counties to bear the burden funding 87.95% of the costs ($35.7 million dollars). As indigent defense issues continue to garner national attention, we are hopeful that the Georgia General Assembly will grant our funding request and increase the state's share of providing counsel to those who cannot afford to hire an attorney in criminal and juvenile cases to a modest fifteen (15%) percent.

30

Budget Responsibility Oversight Committee

The Budget Responsibility Oversight committee completed the performance audit of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council in November 2000. Copies of the audit report are available for viewing at GIDC's website www.gidc.com.

This audit was requested by the Chairman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. The scope of the audit focused on the following five questions:



Is at least 90 percent of all state appropriated funds distributed on an equitable basis?



How does the Council determine what is "an equitable basis"? Does their working

definition meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. 17-12-36 (b)?



What other funds sources are being used or are available for use by GIDC?



How does GIDC allocate funds among its major activities (i.e. for direct legal defense,

professional development seminars, other activities of the Council)?



Are the judicial administrative districts satisfied with the services and performance of the

GIDC?

The audit focused on data from fiscal years 1996 through fiscal year 2001. The audit methodology included: reviews of GIDC records, interviews with GIDC staff, district court judges, and district court administrators; and, reviews of information from federal agencies and national organizations.

Indigent Defense Symposium

In the wake of a Department of Justice-sponsored national symposium on indigent defense this past June, members of the Georgia delegation planned a state-wide indigent defense symposium on November 9, 2000 at the Atlanta Hilton Hotel.

This Symposium marked the beginning of a new collaborative effort, reaching across the entire state, to create a better indigent defense system throughout the state. It is the hope of the Symposium Planning Committee that this Symposium provided a dialog that will benefit the Supreme Court's recently named Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense.

This Symposium was made possible under the sponsorship of a collaborative team including the State Bar of Georgia, and the law schools at Emory University, Georgia State University, Mercer University, and the University of Georgia. The Symposium Planning Committee represented various

31

groups in the criminal justice arena: judges, county commissioners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court administrators, and indigent defense policy makers.
32

Supreme Court's Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense
The Honorable Chief Justice Robert Benham and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia appointed of a 25-member Blue Ribbon Commission in December 2000 to review indigent defense in the State of Georgia. This Commission will study the current indigent defense delivery system(s) in Georgia and will advise the Governor, Georgia General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Georgia on issues relevant to indigent defense. Members of the commission are as follows:
A. Harris Adams, State Court of Cobb County Robert Brown, Secretary, Senate Judiciary Committee Ed Carnes, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Chuck Clay, Chairperson, Republican Party of Georgia Terry Coleman, Chairperson, House Appropriations Committee Flora Devine, Chairperson, Georgia Indigent Defense Council Wilson DuBose, Chairperson, State Bar of Georgia Indigent Defense Committee C. Andrew Fuller, Superior Court Judge, Northeastern Judicial Circuit Jerry Griffin, Executive Director, Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Allen Hammontree, Member, House Judiciary Committee Paul Holmes, Representative, Georgia Chamber of Commerce Phyllis Holman, Georgia Legal Services Howard O. Hunter, Dean, Emory University School of Law Curtis Jenkins, Chairperson, House Special Judiciary Committee Paul Kurtz, Professor, University of Georgia School of Law, Reporter George Lawson, Lawson & Thornton, P.C. Charlie Lester, Past President, State Bar of Georgia Jim Martin, Chairperson, House Judiciary Committee Charles Morgan, BellSouth, Commission Chairperson Michael Meyer von Bremen, Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Aasia Mustakeem, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, L.L.P. Billy Ray, Member Senate Judiciary Committee Miller Peterson ("Pete") Robinson, Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C. Lawton Stephens, Superior Court Judge, Western Judicial Circuit A. Blenn Taylor, Superior Court Judge, Brunswick Judicial Circuit
33

Juvenile Advocacy Division
The Juvenile Advocacy Division provides training, support and consultation to attorneys representing clients in Juvenile Court cases involving delinquency and unruliness, deprivation, and termination of parental rights, and in Superior Court cases involving juveniles who are charged as adults. In addition, the Division compiles statistics and publishes the quarterly SB440 report on juveniles charged as adults under Senate Bill 440.
The Division consists of one attorney division director, one staff attorney, and one paralegal. During 2000, the Division was fortunate to have a PhD social work student intern from the University of Georgia as well as law student interns from both Emory University and Georgia State University.
Attorney Training
One of the primary missions of the Division is to improve the quality and consistency of representation in Georgia's juvenile courts. To that end, the Division works with the Council of Juvenile Court Judges and individual judges throughout the state to conduct training seminars specifically tailored to the needs of the area hosting the seminar.
In 2000, the Division conducted juvenile justice seminars around the state which covered delinquency, deprivation and guardian ad litem guardians ad litem. In 2001, the Division, in conjunction with the Supreme Court Child Placement Project, will develop aspirational guidelines for attorneys who represent parents in deprivation cases.
In addition to the training seminars planned, staffed and conducted by the Division, we were also a co-sponsor of the American Bar Association's Juvenile Defender Leadership Summit in Houston, Texas.
Volunteer Training
In 2000, the Division, along with the Council of Juvenile Court Judges and the Supreme Court Child Placement Project, conducted training sessions for volunteers. The volunteer training project was primarily to help members of the Citizen Review Panels receive the five hours of yearly training they need to remain certified as panel members. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) volunteers also attended these training sessions. In 2000 volunteer training seminars were held all across the state, and over 300 volunteers were trained.
34

The SB440 Report9
Since Senate Bill 440 was passed in May of 1994, GIDC has attempted to track those juveniles charged as adults under the bill. Since 1998, with funding assistance from the Governor's Children and Youth Coordinating Council, the Division has published quarterly reports containing the SB440 arrest data. Both the March and September reports contain dispositional data.
We continue to improve our data collection process and the report is now distributed to a mailing list of over 300. Other states have continued to express interest in both the data compiled and the method of compilation.
Other Division Projects
The Division also provides consultation to attorneys in juvenile cases. We receive several calls each week from attorneys requesting assistance in juvenile matters. The Division also receives referrals from the ABA Juvenile Justice Center and many other agencies.
Division attorneys are active in many national and statewide organizations and committees dealing with children's issues including the ABA Juvenile Justice Committee, the Council of Juvenile Judges' Interagency Alliance, the Children's Justice Act Committee, the Celebration of Educational Excellence, and the Children's Legal Advocacy Coalition among others. Division attorneys are also frequent speakers at training seminars and university classes for law students, attorneys, social workers, and juvenile court volunteers.
Trish McCann, the staff attorney for the Division, is on the advisory board of the Southern Juvenile Defender Center. The Center encompasses the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. The fundamental purpose of the Center is to improve the lives of children within the region, provide high quality defense services within the justice system, and reshape the public's knowledge and understanding of issues affecting these children. The Division is collaborating with the Center on many projects, including a regional juvenile defender leadership seminar to be held in May 2001.
Finally, the Juvenile Division has recognized that there is a need to address the lack of special education advocacy for children from indigent families who are at risk of being committed to juvenile facilities or short term treatment programs due to behavior that arises from their unmet educational needs. Therefore, the Division is collaborating with Fulton County Juvenile Court on a special education
9 SB 440, the "School Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1994" was codified at 15-11-5(b)(2)(A), and gave the superior court exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of any child 13 to 17 years of age who is alleged to have committed one of seven specific offenses: murder; voluntary manslaughter; rape; aggravated sodomy; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; or armed robbery if committed with a firearm.
35

advocate program. The program will provide juvenile judges with the opportunity to appoint a lawyer as a Special Education Advocate for children in the juvenile court system whose history indicates an unmet need for special education services. The Special Education Advocate represents the child and the parents to compel the school district to provide the necessary services that a child needs to make meaningful progress in his or her education. The Juvenile Division will provide thorough training for new lawyers who will then be placed on the "court-appointed" list to represent the child and parents at school.
36

Mental Health Advocacy Division
The Mental Health Advocacy Division (MHAD) provides services state-wide as a way of assisting attorneys, hospitals and courts in cases involving mentally ill criminal defendants. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 17-12-45, the Division monitors cases where the defendant has been found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI). The Division is notified of every case when an individual is found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity and contacts the local attorney at that time. Depending on the needs of the case and the local attorney, the Division will monitor the individual's progress at the state hospital and maintain contact with the treating professionals. When possible, the original attorney should continue representation. The statute authorizes the Division's attorneys to directly represent these individuals; the Division will do so when a local attorney is unable to. The staff members also consult with attorneys, hospital staff or others in other situations involving mentally ill criminal defendants; pending criminal cases, cases in which the defendant has been found to be incompetent to stand trial, or where the defendant is in a penal institution and is mentally ill. Members of MHAD work with local attorneys, mental health professionals, courts and others to see that the mentally ill defendant is treated for any mental illness and receives due process rights afforded by law.
MHAD is currently staffed by three attorneys, a Division Assistant and two part-time students receiving their Masters in Social Work. The Division also utilizes work/study students, undergraduate and law students. Marianne McMillan, a staff attorney, worked as a paralegal for MHAD prior to attending law school. She graduated from Emory Law School in 1997 and has worked for MHAD since that time. Sabrina Rhinehart is an attorney with 6 years of experience in criminal law. She began her work with the Division in November 1999. The third attorney is Debra Blum, the Division Director, who has almost 15 years of criminal and mental health law experience. Susan Myrick, the Division Assistant, is a former employee of the DeKalb Community Service Board, Atlanta Regional Hospital and the Georgia Mental Health Institute. All four members of the Division maintain constant contact with the patients and with the hospital staff who deal with the patients. The attorneys also maintain contact with the courts and with the appointed attorneys.
This is the first academic year in which MHAD became a field placement for students earning their Masters in Social Work. The Division was fortunate to have two students apply for a field placement with MHAD. Their responsibilities include working with hospitalized individuals on treatment issues, developing community placements and resources for individuals who need treatment as a part of a disposition in a criminal case. The students also work with attorneys around the state on individual cases where mental health issues or placement issues arise.
MHAD has continued to work with DeKalb County on the formation of Georgia's first Mental Health Court. Debra Blum has been chairing the committee charged with designing the Court's procedures and developing the resources necessary for the operation of the Court. Currently there are approximately 4 mental health courts in the United States. They are the subject of recent legislation in Congress which is poised to provide incentives for the funding of these courts nationwide. With this
37

Court, DeKalb County will be one of the pioneers in addressing the issue of "the criminalization of the mentally ill." The Mental Health Court will begin taking referrals in January, 2001.
Cases come to MHAD in many different postures. If there has been no disposition on a case involving a mentally ill criminal defendant, a Division staff member may consult with the local appointed attorney about different approaches to the case. MHAD assists in locating independent experts, interpreting evaluations, drafting motions (MHAD has an extensive motions and orders bank) and brainstorming. The Division's philosophy in general is to try and avoid a plea of NGRI; the consequences to the individual are generally far more severe and detrimental than a plea of guilty would have been. As a result MHAD staff often assists in developing an alternative sentence which addresses a particular defendant's need for mental health treatment. The social work students' help has been invaluable in this regard.
Frequently MHAD assists in educating the defense attorney and the court about issues related to mental illness as it relates to a criminal defendant. This education takes many forms. In some instances, a staff member will provide information about the statutory criteria for confinement in an institution. Quite often the staff member's task is to inform the parties and the court about what is not a mental illness under Georgia law. There are many language differences between the legal and mental health professionals which create confusion in these cases. Attorneys and judges are not always familiar with the terms and procedures in dealing with the mentally ill criminal defendant. Furthermore, although Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity gets a great deal of press at times, insanity cases don't really arise often in the general practice of criminal law. As a result, MHAD's resources are often used in and out of court when a mentally ill individual is charged with a crime. During this past year, the Division wrote to each judge in the state, advising them of MHAD's services and offered the Division's "bench book" and disk. Many judges and attorneys have since requested copies of these materials to use in their courtrooms and cases. MHAD has recently added information on the Division and its services to the GIDC website, (www.gidc.com) and will continue to add to that information.
If the case has been disposed of and a plea of NGRI has been entered, a Division staff member will work with the appointed attorney and the hospital staff to make sure that the appropriate follow-up hearings are held. By statute MHAD is able to represent individuals who have been found NGRI. The Division does represent some of these individuals, but does try and encourage local counsel to stay on the case when possible. Generally, though, if there is local counsel, MHAD will continue to monitor the case and work with the attorney and with hospital staff to contact the courts and request passes or release privileges consistent with both the patient's treatment needs and that patient's wishes. The "client" is the patient and MHAD will take no action contrary to that patient's wishes.
This year GIDC used some of the agency's funds to distribute "improvement grants" to various counties. Mental Health was one of the award categories. Two programs applied for and received awards of funding. Bibb County's Community Service Board, River Edge, received money to dedicate part of their staff specifically to the insanity population. Their proposal included increased interaction with
38

the court system with regard to mentally ill criminal defendants. This program has started making inroads, particularly with the interactions with the courts and the defense bar. The other applicant for funding was the Augusta Judicial Circuit, (Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties) which applied through the Indigent Defense Administrator's (IDA) Office. Their proposal was to designate a local attorney who would be specially trained, in part by MHAD, in mental health cases and that the IDA staff would also be trained and work with this attorney on cases involving mentally ill defendants. This program has been funded and has been very successful thus far. The IDA's office and the local attorney are working with the hospital and other treatment providers to assist patients seeking hearings and appropriate releases. MHAD is optimistic that more funding will be secured to specially designate and train more attorneys to handle these cases in a manner most beneficial to the clients.
One of MHAD's missions is to offer ongoing education to attorneys, judges and mental health professionals dealing with the mentally ill criminal defendant. The Division's plan for the upcoming year includes continuing state-wide seminars on this topic. MHAD regularly conducts seminars which are open not only to hospital employees, but also to local attorneys, judges and mental health professionals working in the community. Part of the Division's goal is to present to these audiences with the various perspectives the different parties represent in dealing with these patients. Additionally, MHAD has been asked to speak to groups on more advanced or focused topics. MHAD has addressed Community Service Boards, groups of hospital personnel, judges groups, and statewide trainings for mental health professional. The focus is different for each group, but overall the message is the same: the mentally ill criminal defendant is entitled to ongoing, active support from an attorney who can work with the hospital and the court to assure that the patient receives all appropriate treatment and rights. The audiences MHAD has addressed have been receptive; there is sometimes a difference in the way these cases are handled.
One thing that has not changed is that different agencies with potential roles in the outcome of a case either do not know of other agencies' potential, and often fail to contact the agency. MHAD staff often spends a great deal of time and energy just bringing representatives of different agencies together to make plans in a case. Although it is frustrating, the results make the efforts worthwhile and cases which had languished have begun to make real progress. Individuals begin to get valuable treatment and the treatment personnel and the court begins to see options which they did not see before. It is MHAD's hope that with the Division's continued involvement, the various agencies will begin to use the protocols for all patients. The Mental Health Court in DeKalb may prove to be a model program that can be modified for use by other counties.
39

MHAD Caseload Information

Current Open Cases:

207

Complex Cases Opened 1/1/00-12/1/00 26

Quick Resolution Cases 1/1/00-12/1/00 159

Total Opened Cases Since 1992

540

Total Quick Resolution Cases

631

(QR inception date 1996)

Cases Closed 1/1/00-12/1/00

18

The Mental Health Advocacy Division continues to provide assistance to attorneys, patients and hospital staff state-wide. The Division has set up a network of resources which enables quick responses to requests for information. MHAD works with other agencies on a state and national level to make sure that resources and information are as current as possible and to insure that issues are not overlooked. The Division's particular scope is fairly narrow, but MHAD doesn't want to ignore other aspects of patient rights. MHAD's goals are: (1) to make sure that every insanity acquittee has an attorney who has considered the mental health issues in the case and knows enough about the process to insist that the patient's treatment rights are brought before the court and (2) to ensure that attorneys dealing with a mentally ill criminal defendant avail themselves of the resources and information necessary to inform their clients of the realistic consequences of the potential dispositions in the case.

40

Multi-County Public Defender10
Background Information
The Multi-County Public Defender Office serves as a trial resource center for attorneys handling death penalty cases. The Office is available, in every capitally charged felony case, to serve as a resource and to provide consultation to locally appointed counsel. The Office provides assistance in death penalty cases by: (1) providing training and assistance to attorneys who have been appointed to defend defendants charged with a capital offense; (2) serving as co-counsel to assist local appointed lead counsel in the trial and direct appeal of cases involving defendants facing the death penalty; and (3) accepting appointments to provide direct representation as lead counsel in death penalty cases based upon the circumstances of each individual case. The creation of the Multi-County Public Defender Office was the fruition of long sought recognition that indigent defense in the area of capital litigation is unique because the burden placed upon the defense lawyer in a capital trial is unparalleled in the practice of law. It is well established that effective and competent representation in capital cases involves far more than nominal representation by a member of the bar. It requires the assistance of an advocate with such skill and knowledge in the subject area of the litigation to ensure that the trial is a reliable adversarial testing process.
Death Penalty Representation
Representation of the accused in a capital case involves a complex body of constitutional law and unusual procedures that do not apply in other criminal cases. A death penalty trial is bifurcated, meaning there are two trials with two different sets of issues. In every death penalty case, investigation must be conducted for both sets of issues, including the entire lifetime of the defendant and the victim as
10 The Multi-County Public Defender was created as a result of the cooperation between the Georgia General Assembly and the Georgia Supreme Court. In 1991, the editorial board of the Atlanta Constitution stated, in an editorial entitled "The War On Crime Needs Defense," (June 18, 1991):
[I]f a defendant has adequate counsel at his trial many of the cases we have seen sent back for retrials will be upheld and the sentences carried out in a much more timely fashion," declared Justice Clarke. For example, this year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous en banc decision, remanded a Georgia death penalty case because the public defender had obtained immunity from prosecution for one of his clients to testify against another of his clients. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Georgia Bench has lost patience with having to deal again and again with this kind of slipshod, not to say unethical, behavior.
Justice Clarke's idea would be to establish a state-funded center to 'assist and guide' the defense attorney from the day prosecutors announce they are seeking the death penalty. This will, he recognized, require money. But the cost will be more than offset by savings in cases that are handled right the first time around.
41

well as the investigation of the charges. Penalty phase preparation requires extensive investigation into personal and family history. This investigation is the threshold of adequate representation in a capital case.
Particularized skills are required of counsel for competent representation in a capital case. Death penalty cases raise complex additional legal and factual issues beyond those raised in an ordinary felony trial. The minimal level of attorney competence that may be accepted as sufficient in some jurisdictions in noncapital cases can be fatally inadequate in death penalty cases.
The actual trial of most death penalty cases, from voir dire of the jury, through verdict, will extend over several weeks. Indeed, the defense attorneys will not be able to do a complete job on any case without having expended many hundreds of hours in preparation for trial.
In spite of these burdens, conscientious counsel are rewarded with imminent financial ruin. The lawyers in capital cases are often paid less than minimum wage while the cost of mere overhead expenses for a law office runs in the neighborhood of $45 and $55 an hour (excluding the time and efforts of attorneys), resulting in an enormous and undue cost to any attorney appointed to defend the capitally accused.
As a consequence of having once suffered such extreme financial hardship, eighty-two percent of trial counsel who have represented indigent defendants in a capital murder case would either not accept another appointed case, or would be very reluctant to do so, according to a recent study.
A special committee formed by Justice Carol Hunstein recommended to the Georgia Supreme Court that the minimum fee schedule death penalty defense attorneys be increased above the minimum fees required in indigent defense cases. At the recommendation of Justice Hunstein's committee, the Supreme Court changed the fee structure in capital indigent cases to "more than" $45 out-of-court and $60 in-court. The recommendation for an increase in the minimum fees was tied to another recommendation made by the special committee relating to qualifications for the appointment for lead counsel and second counsel in death penalty cases.
Effective January 27, 2000, the Supreme Court of Georgia instituted a provision setting the minimum qualifications of appointed counsel in death penalty cases. The Supreme Court has also directed that in every death penalty case two trial attorneys are to be appointed. In order to insure that persons are adequately represented in death penalty cases, any attorney appointed to serve as either lead or co-counsel is required to meet certain minimum qualifications. For lead counsel, those minimum qualifications include at least five years criminal litigation experience as a defense attorney or a prosecuting attorney; and experience as lead counsel in at least one death-penalty murder trial to verdict or three capital (non-death penalty) trials to a verdict, one of which must have been a murder case, or been co-counsel in two death penalty cases. Lead counsel must have also attended, within twelve months previous to his or her appointment, at least ten hours of specialized training or educational
42

programs in death-penalty defense.
Co-counsel in death penalty cases must also meet certain minimum requirements. Co-counsel must have at least three years criminal trial experience either as a criminal defense attorney or prosecuting attorney; and must have been lead or co-counsel in at least one (non-death penalty) murder trial to a verdict, or in at least two felony jury trials. Co-counsel must also meet the minimum ten hours required specialized training in death penalty defense. The Georgia Supreme Court also established similar requirements for those attorneys who are appointed to handle direct appeals in death penalty cases.
The Multi-County Public Defender Office is the response of the General Assembly of Georgia to the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia regarding legal representation of indigent capital defendants. This commitment by the legislators of the State of Georgia reflects a clear understanding and acceptance of the constitutional guarantees afforded to every citizen of the State of Georgia.
The Multi-County Public Defender Office is a division of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The Indigent Defense Council was created by legislation in 1979 and is the state agency responsible for improving the criminal justice system for Georgia's poorest citizens. The Council is composed of 15 members appointed by the Supreme Court of Georgia - 10 lawyers, one from each of the 10 judicial administrative districts in Georgia, three lay persons from the state at-large, and two county commissioners.
The Multi-County Public Defender Office was created by legislation in 1992. This legislation, codified as O.C.G.A. 17-12-90, et. seq. provides that the purpose of the Office is to undertake the defense of all indigent persons charged with a capital felony for which the death penalty is being sought in any court in this state. The legislation also provides that the Multi-County Public Defender Office shall serve all counties of this state.
The Multi-County Public Defender Office is under the direction of the Multi-County Public Defender who is appointed by and who serves at the pleasure of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council and the Executive Director of Council. The Multi-County Public Defender must have been licensed to practice law in this state for at least five years and must be competent to counsel and defend a person charged with a capital felony. The Multi-County Public Defender Office employs staff attorneys, clerks, paralegals, investigators, stenographers, and other persons as may be necessary for carrying out his responsibility under this article.11
11 Currently, the staff of the Multi-County Public Defender Office consists of five (5) attorneys, three fulltime mitigation specialists/investigators, one full-time mental health specialist (who holds Masters of Social Work), one full-time paralegal, one part-time research associate (a doctoral candidate in the field of Sociology at Emory University), and one part-time clerical assistant. The work of these individuals is regularly supplemented through
43

The Multi-County Public Defender Office represents individuals who have been accused of a capital felony for which the death penalty is being sought. If that person has been determined to be indigent, the Court in which such charges are pending may notify the Multi-County Public Defender and the Office will assume the defense of such person if the resources, funding, and staffing of the office allow; provided, however, that the public defender of any county shall have the option to assume sole responsibility for the defense of any such person. The Multi-County Public Defender Office will also respond to the requests of individual attorneys representing defendants who are facing a possible death sentence. If that person is deemed to be indigent, the Office will provide a range of assistance to the local defense attorney. The assistance which may be provided will range from help in preparing pre-trial motions to aid in the actual representation at trial. If for any reason the Multi-County Public Defender is unable to defend any indigent person accused of a capital felony for which the death penalty is being sought, such defense shall be provided as otherwise provided by law. Such defense shall include all proceedings in the trial court and any appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The legislation does provide, however, that the Multi-County Public Defender shall not assist with any petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.
Current Yearly Report - 2000
During the period from January 1, 2000 through December 1, 2000 the Multi-County Public Defender Office opened new files in 49 new death penalty cases in the State of Georgia.12 The opening of these cases brings the total number of active cases in which the Multi-County Public Defender Office is either providing direct representation or providing consultative services to 88 cases. The assistance provided in these cases involved 37 different counties.
As of December 1, 2000 there are, as noted previously, 88 death penalty cases pending at the trial level (this does not include those cases which are currently on direct appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.) This figure also does not include the 134 individuals (133 men and 1 female) who have completed the trial process and are either in the process of appealing their cases directly to the Georgia Supreme Court or who have completed the direct appeal process and are in the habeas corpus process. The 133 men who have been sentenced to death are housed at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center at Jackson, Georgia and the one female who is currently under a sentence of death is being held at the Metro State Prison in DeKalb County.
the use of law student interns from Emory University and the University of Georgia. During the summer months each year, the work of the staff is supplemented through the use of law student interns from various Public Interest Sections at law schools throughout the United States based upon the availability of scholarships for those students.
12 An "Active Consult" case is defined as a case in which one or more attorneys from the MPD staff have: (1) met with the trial counsel in a death penalty case and discussed the facts and strategy of the case; (2) provided trial counsel with assistance in preparing pre-trial or post-trial motions; and/or (3) met with the defendants to discuss strategy and any possible negotiated plea agreement.
44

The Multi-County Public Defender Office staff attorneys are currently providing direct representation in seven death penalty cases. These cases are distributed among seven different counties. The Multi-County Public Defender Office has appeared before the Georgia Supreme Court in seven different cases since January 1, 1999.
During the period of time from January 1, through December 1, 2000 the staff of the MultiCounty Public Defender Office assisted in the negotiations of plea agreements in 10 cases in which a notice of intent to seek the death penalty had been filed. For the period of time from October 1992 through December 1, 2000, the staff of the Multi-County Public Defender Office has assisted in resolving 196 death penalty cases through negotiated plea agreements.
The 521 cases in which the Multi-County Public Defender Office has been involved since October 1992 have included 118 different Georgia counties. The Multi-County Public Defender Office also maintains records, in each death penalty case, of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim(s). The services of the Multi-County Public Defender staff, including mitigation specialists, investigators, mental health specialist,13 paralegals and attorneys, have been provided at no charge to the counties in which those cases were filed.
In addition to the consultation cases and direct representation cases, Multi-County Public Defender staff attorneys organized and presented four death penalty defense seminars in 2000 for trial attorneys. As noted previously, the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender is currently conducting seminars on behalf of local Superior Court Judges and Indigent Defense Administrators in an effort to assist in the qualification of attorneys pursuant to the new amendments to the Unified Appeal Procedures.
The most recent death penalty defense seminar was held on December 15th and 16th for attorneys in the Northern and Mountain Circuits.14 More than 235 attorneys have attended MPD
13 The Georgia General Assembly provided additional funding to the Multi-County Public Defender Office in the FY 2000 Budget for an in-house mental health specialist. This position has been filled with an individual who has a Master of Social Work degree and who specializes in mental health issues. This person will also supervise a master's degree program for mental health specialists. The participants in this program will work as interns for the Multi-County Public Defender Office.
14 Upon the adoption of the Amendments to the Unified Appeal Proceedings which requires specialized training in the defense of death penalty cases, The Multi-County Public Defender advised every Superior Court Judge currently serving in Georgia that the office would provide the required number of hours of CLE approved training in the defense of death penalty cases. The Judges were advised that the training, including all materials, is free of charge to any Georgia attorney who is actively involved in the defense of a death penalty case or who agrees to accept an appointment in a death penalty case. The Judges were advised that make all arrangements to insure that any attorneys appointed to represent indigents in death penalty cases would receive the appropriate number of hours of specialized training. As a result of those contacts, the Director of the Office received requests for assistance from three different circuits and seminars were arranged and completed.
45

seminars during the year 2000. In addition to the seminar referenced previously, the Appellate Division of the Multi-County Public Defender office will conduct a death penalty appellate seminar on December1 for an expected 50 attorneys.
To assist in the training efforts maintained by the Multi-County Public Defender Office, the Director and staff have prepared and published ten manuals of varying subject matter which are designed to assist defense attorneys in the trial of a death penalty case. During the period between January 1, 1999 and December 1, 2000, copies of those manuals have been distributed to more than 126 different attorneys throughout the State of Georgia. In December, 1998, the Multi-County Public Defender wrote and edited a Capital Defender's Basic Guidebook. This guidebook is now available to any attorney in the State of Georgia who has been appointed to defend a death penalty case.
During that same time period, the Multi-County Public Defender has published seven articles relating to the death penalty and/or the trial of death penalty cases. One article entitled "The Defense Attorney's Ethical Response to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims," was published in the October 1999 edition of The Georgia Bar Journal. The Multi-County Public Defender Office, along with the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, has also published the only written history of the death penalty in the State of Georgia. This book, "The Death Penalty in Georgia: A Modern History 1970 - 2000," has been distributed throughout the State and provides a complete listing of all death sentenced individuals in Georgia since the reestablishment of the death penalty in 1973.
The Director of the Multi-County Public Defender Office has been selected to provide training for the leadership of public defender offices from across the United States at the annual National Association of Legal and Public Defender Association's meeting in Washington, D.C., November 29 through December 2, 2000. The purpose of the training conducted by the Director was to provide a model by which supervisors of public defenders can properly manage the ethical and professional responses to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Director has published a booklet Ethical Responses to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims and this booklet was used as the text for the national training session.15
The staff members of the Multi-County Public Defender Office, in conjunction with GIDC's Professional Education Division have conducted numerous seminars relating to general criminal defense issues as well as death penalty issues. The Multi-County Public Defender Office will once again conduct its annual winter three day death penalty seminar this coming year. The program is being moved from McRae, Georgia to Jekyll Island, Georgia and will take place in February 2001. This seminar is an invitation only seminar for attorneys who are actually trying death penalty cases at the present time. The attendance at this seminar this year will involve more than 125 attorneys.
15 The Director of the Multi-County Public Defender Office published The Defense Attorney's Ethical Response to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims in the Georgia Bar Journal, Volume 5, No. 2, October 1999.
46

During this past year, The Multi-County Public Defender Office continued to publish a quarterly newsletter entitled Capital Ideas devoted to capital case developments in Georgia. Charlotta Norby, Senior Staff Attorney, serves as Editor of this newsletter and contributes a recent case law annotation in each edition. Capital Ideas has been designed to be a "working" newsletter that can serve as a trial notebook supplement. The newsletter is mailed with holes already punched for easy placement in an attorney's trial notebook or trial reference materials. Thus far, the newsletter has received excellent reviews and is being distributed to a limited mailing list composed of death penalty defense attorneys, some judges, and others who work within the death penalty defense community.
47

New Cases Opened Each Year by the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender

60 50 40 30 20 10
0 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

48

Professional Education

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council began conducting training programs in 1992. Last year, GIDC sponsored over 80 seminars and workshops designed specifically to benefit indigent defense attorneys in Georgia. Close to 4000 attorneys received training from GIDC in 2000. This is remarkable considering the staff of the Professional Education Division consists of four people: an attorney with 13 years experience as a Criminal Defense attorney who designs the seminars and the staff to coordinate the seminars, communicate and distribute information, and prepare publications.

GIDC is the second largest Continuing Legal Education provider in Georgia. Only the State Bar of Georgia provides more training events. Without GIDC, indigent defense attorneys would only have access to: 3 seminars on criminal defense provided by the State Bar; 4 seminars provided by the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and out-of-state seminars.

GIDC's commitment to education is based on several factors:



Proper training is essential to performing any task. While all attorneys attend law

school, specialized training is required to properly represent individuals in Georgia courts. The

State Bar of Georgia recognizes this fact and requires every active member of the bar attend 12

hours of Continuing Legal Education which includes specialized hours in Professionalism, Ethics,

Dispute Resolution, and, for trial counsel, Trial Practice.



Knowledgeable and skilled attorneys handle cases more efficiently and

effectively. By gaining specialized knowledge of criminal defense, attorneys can better analyze

their cases and dispose of them quicker. They know which ones to try and which ones to

negotiate a plea. By skillfully evaluating cases, attorneys can successfully dispose of most cases

early in the process, thereby reducing the amount of time a defendant stays in the county jail and

saving the county substantial money.



Research is time-consuming and expensive. Our seminars are extremely practical.

The materials include the most up-to-date information on the topic being trained. These

resources are used by attorneys to focus their research. In addition, the Professional Education

Division writes, edits and publishes the Defender Handbook Series which are single issue books

that discuss that issue in great detail thus saving attorneys time and the county money for

research costs.



Technological and scientific advancements have changed the way criminal

defense is practiced. It is very difficult for any attorney to keep up with the changes in the law,

much less changes in technology and science. GIDC presents cutting edge information in a

clear, easy to understand format. Our faculty members are among the most renown experts in

the country. Exposure to these experts affords indigent defense attorneys a greater

49

understanding of such evidence.
GIDC is very proud of our commitment to education. Our seminars are consistently ranked as excellent by our seminar participants. Many contact us after the training to tell us that they were able to successfully resolve a case, often without a trial, based on what they learned from us.
One essential element in insuring that quality indigent defense services are provided at the lowest cost to the counties is knowledgeable and skilled attorneys. By providing training and resources, the Professional Education Division is having a significant and positive impact on the way indigent defense services are provided in Georgia.
Seminars and Training
The Professional Education Division sponsored over 82 seminars in 2000. These seminars ranged from full day seminars to workshops lasting an hour. The 2000 seminar schedule included several different types of seminars:
General Seminars These seminars represent the traditional format for legal education - lectures about a variety of topics relating to criminal defense practice.
Mental Health Advocacy Crime Scene Investigation Science and the Law Post Conviction Public Defender Seminar Basic Criminal Defense (with State Bar of Georgia)
Atlanta Savannah Dalton Macon Athens Lawrenceville Basic Criminal Procedure Advanced Criminal Procedure New Lawyer Training (2 days) Buckhead Murder workshop Case Law Updates (Quarterly workshop conducted by Don Samuel, noted Atlanta attorney and the author of The Georgia Caselaw Finder)
Case Specific Seminars These seminars focus on a particular type of case and provide the attorneys attending the seminar with a firm understanding of the challenges they will face in representing indigent clients in these types of cases. By limiting the topic we are able to go much further in-depth into the
50

topic. Defending a Drug Case Defending a Drug Case - Thomasville Defending a Traffic Case Defending a Child Molestation Case DUI Skills Training (3 days) How to Try a Murder Case DUI, Drugs and Trial Skills - McRae
Juvenile General Seminars These seminars are conducted by the Juvenile Advocacy Division of GIDC with active involvement of the Juvenile Court Judges in the area.
Rome Atlanta Forsyth Rockmart
Death Penalty Seminars These seminars are conducted by the Multicounty Public Defender of GIDC and boast a faculty of the most outstanding death penalty lawyers in the country.
Death Penalty Appeals Advanced Death Penalty Seminar Death Penalty Investigation Death Penalty Certification Training
Lawrenceville Augusta Danielsville
Appellate Advocacy Skills Training - Appeal This series was an Advanced Appellate Practice training program. The workshops were offered once a month and participants were encouraged to attend each month because each workshop built on the one before. This series was designed and facilitated by James Bonner, the Division Director for GIDC's Appellate Advocacy Division.
Nuts & Bolts: Basic Mechanics of An Appeal Motion for a New Trial & Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Statement of Facts/Issues Reading the Record (Issue Spotting) - Enumeration of Errors Argument & Conclusion A View from the Bench & Series Wrap-Up
Bring Your Files These workshops allow a small group of attorneys to meet with experts in various fields relating to criminal defense and discuss how best to proceed on actual cases. By taking the time to discuss their case with experts, attorneys can effectively evaluate their cases and often reach a satisfactory resolution early in the process.
51

Drug Case Investigating a Criminal Case Forensic Evidence Immigration Consequences Child Molestation Crime Scene Investigation Pre-Trial Motions Appeals Homicide
In addition to these small group workshops, the GIDC staff is available every Wednesday afternoon for "File Consultations." A single attorney can bring in one or more cases and brainstorm their defense. Advice is given as to applicable statutory and case law, avenues of investigation and trial strategies. Attorneys who avail themselves of this opportunity save themselves (and therefore the counties paying the attorney fees) hours of research and preparation. Many of the cases we have consulted on have resulted in successful resolutions without the going to trial.
Support Personnel Training For the past two years, GIDC has sponsored seminars designed for the support personnel who work with criminal defense attorneys - paralegals and investigators.
Investigator Basic Criminal Law - A Walk Through the Criminal Justice System Investigating a Child Molestation Case Crime Scene/ Forensic Evidence Advanced Interviewing Techniques Discovery Issues & Report Writing
Paralegal Client & Family Communication Juvenile Justice Bonds, Motions & Trial Notebook Legal Writing & Research Law Research - Fulton County Law Library
Computer Training WordPerfect Advanced Internet Atlanta Thomasville Savannah PowerPoint
52

Basic Internet Atlanta
Word Web Page Design Westlaw Attorneys who attend our seminars rapidly become more effective and efficient advocates for their clients. These attorneys are learning how to evaluate a case - deciding which are appropriate for negotiating a plea and which must go to trial. They are also more efficient in preparing for trial and in utilizing resources at trial.
Publications The Professional Education Division, publishes the Defender Handbook Series. This series of books is designed to help indigent defense lawyers with specific issues relating to their practice. The Defense Attorney's Ethical Response to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims The Presentation of Ex Parte Motions The Law of Confessions in Georgia The Effective Use of Objections During a Criminal Trial Interrogations: Challenging the Admissibility of Confessions, Admissions, and Statements The "New" Necessity Exception to the Hearsay Rule in Georgia: A New Rule of Inclusion? A Brief History of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council Crimes and Punishments in Georgia Search and Seizure Manual Appellate Practice Manual
53

Newsletters The staff of the Professional Education Division publishes two newsletters. Indigent Defense
Issues is published bi-monthly which informs legal professionals and others of GIDC's work, recent developments in the law and other information pertaining to indigent defense. Cheap Seats is published quarterly and details all upcoming GIDC sponsored seminars and publications.
54

Georgia Indigent Defense Council
Members

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Members
O.C.G.A. 17-12-32 (b) provides that the Georgia Indigent Defense Council...shall be composed of 15 persons appointed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. One active member of the State Bar of Georgia shall be selected from each of the ten judicial administrative districts of the state, three non-lawyers shall be selected from the state at large, and two additional members shall be selected one of whom shall be a member of a metropolitan county governing authority and the other shall be a member of a nonmetropolitan county governing authority.
H. Burton ("Burt") Baker is a named partner in the Valdosta law firm of McClure, Folsom & Baker. A member of the Georgia and Florida bars, Mr. Baker is an Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice at Valdosta State College and the Immediate Past Chair of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. Mr. Baker represents the 2nd Judicial Administrative District.
Althea L. Buafo is the principal of the Macon law firm of Buafo and Associates. Her practice focuses on criminal defense and plaintiff's personal injury matters. Ms. Buafo currently serves as an area Vice President of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and as Chairperson of the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board. Ms. Buafo represents the 3rd Judicial Administrative District.
David L. Cannon, Sr. is a named partner in the Canton law firm of Cannon & Cannon, L.L.P. Mr. Cannon is the Municipal Court Judge of Holly Springs and serves as a Judge Pro Hac Vice in the Cherokee State Court. Mr. Cannon is the Chairperson of the Cherokee County Tripartite Committee, serves on the Cherokee County Sheriff's Employee Termination Review Board and is a member of the Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Cannon represents the 9th Judicial Administrative District.
Bill Cooper is the President and C.E.O. of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Cooper served as a pilot in the United States Air Force and then with Delta Air Lines. He has served as a member of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Cooper is a member of the Board of Directors of the Cobb County Y.M.C.A. and Kennesaw Museum Foundation. Mr. Cooper holds one of three nonlawyer state-at large positions on the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.
Flora B. Devine is Counsel to the Dean of Kennesaw State University. A graduate of both Leadership DeKalb and Leadership Atlanta, Ms. Devine serves on the Board of Girl's, Inc. Ms. Devine has served in the legal departments of the City of Atlanta and Georgia State University. Ms. Devine currently holds the post of Chairperson of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Ms. Devine represents the 7th Judicial Administrative District.
57

Martin L. Fierman is a sole practitioner of law in Eatonton. A native of Atlanta, Mr. Fierman entered the private practice of law following service in Vietnam. His general practice of law includes emphasis on criminal defense in both federal and state courts. Mr. Fierman represents the 8th Judicial Administrative District.
Wilbur G. ("Bill") Kurtz, III is the President of Premier Bank in Greensboro. An active member of community organizations, Mr. Kurtz has served as the President of the DeKalb Chamber of Commerce, a Trustee of the DeKalb Tech Foundation, Chairman of the DeKalb Planning Commission and on the boards of the Metropolitan Atlanta Recovery Residences, Inc., Grady Health System, and the DeKalb Historical Society. He is a member of the Morgan County Historical Society. Mr. Kurtz holds one of three non-lawyer state-at large positions on the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.
Robert E. Minnear is an Instructor at the Goizueta School of Business at Emory University. Mr. Minnear is a retired partner at the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, where he served as a Managing Partner and Director of Professional Services. He is the Past President of the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants and a recipient of that organization's Meritorious Service Award in recognition of lifetime service to the accounting profession. His is a Board Member and Treasurer of Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., the guardian of the Fox Theater, and a Past President of the Board of Directors of Hillside Hospital. Mr. Minnear is the Treasurer of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Mr. Minnear holds one of three non-lawyer state-at large positions on the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.
Bruce H. Morris is a named partner in the Atlanta law firm of Finestone & Morris. Mr. Morris is an Adjunct Professor at the Georgia State University College of Law and a Guest Lecturer at Emory University's School of Law. Mr. Morris has served as the President of the Board of Directors of the Federal Defender Program and the A.C.L.U of Georgia. He currently serves as the Vice President of the Board of Trustees of the Atlanta Jewish Community Center and on the Board of the Atlanta Jewish Federation. Mr. Morris is the Secretary of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Mr. Morris represents the 5th Judicial Administrative District.
John E. Morse, Jr. is a Superior Court Judge of the Eastern Judicial Circuit in Savannah. Judge Morse is currently pursuing his Masters of Divinity. Judge Morse is the Vice Chairperson of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council and represents the 1st Judicial Administrative District.
Robin S. Nash is a Judge of the DeKalb Juvenile Court in Decatur. Judge Nash is a graduate of Leadership DeKalb and a recipient of the A.A.D.D. Bobby Dodd Award. He is the Chair of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges' Legislative Committee and Treasurer of the Georgia School Age Care Association. Judge Nash represents the 4th Judicial Administrative District.
58

Samuel S. Olens is a named partner in the Atlanta law firm of Ezor & Olens, P.C. Mr. Olens currently serves as a member of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners. He has been honored as the East Cobb Citizen of the Year by the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce. A graduate of Leadership Cobb, Mr. Olens serves on the Board of Congregation Etz Chaim and is a Past President of the East Cobb Civic Association, Inc. Mr. Olens serves on the Georgia Indigent Defense Council as a representative of a metropolitan area governing authority.
Edward D. Tolley is a named partner in the Athens law firm of Cook, Noell, Tolley, Bates & Michael, L.L.P. Mr. Tolley is a member of the State Bar Board of Governors and serves on that organization's Formal Advisory Opinion Board on Ethics and the Disciplinary Rules & Procedures Committee. He is a Past President of the Athens Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association for the Middle District of Georgia, and the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as well as a Past Vice President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Tolley has been recognized in the Best Lawyers in America and holds a "Preeminent Lawyer" listing in Martindale-Hubble. Mr. Tolley represents the 10th Judicial Administrative District.
H. Jay Walker, III is a sole practitioner of law in Warner Robbins. His practice emphasizes domestic relations and criminal defense. A lifelong resident of Houston County, he is a former member of the Georgia General Assembly and currently serves on the Houston County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Walker is a Life Member of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators and the V.F.W., and is a member of the Board of Trustees for the Georgia College and State University. A Past President of the American Heart Association, Mr. Walker is an active member of the Warner Robins Jaycees, the Loyal Order of the Moose, the Masonic Lodge, Tyrian 111 and Scottish Rite. He serves as the Chairman of the Houston Arts Alliance and is on the Board of the Houston County United Way. Mr. Walker serves on the Georgia Indigent Defense Council as a representative of a non-metropolitan area governing authority.
Gerald Word is a named partner in the Carrollton law firm of Johnson, Word & Simmons. His practice focuses on criminal defense and plaintiff's personal injury. Mr. Word is a member of the of the State Bar Board of Governors and the Chairperson of the Carroll County Tripartite Committee. Mr. Word represents the 6th Judicial Administrative District.
59

State Funding of Indigent Defense

Comparison of State & Total Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Years 2000 & 2001 (Calendar Years 1998 & 1999)

FY00-CY98 50

40

30

20

10

0

State Funding

Total Cost

Clerks' & Sheriffs' Funding

FY01-CY99 50

40

30

20

10

0

State Funding

Total Cost

Clerks' & Sheriffs' Funding

Millions Millions

Calendar Year 1998 Indigent Defense Expenses,

Statewide:

$36,880,226

State Funding in Fiscal Year 2000 (offsetting county

expenses from CY 1998):

$4,340,000

Percentage of State Funding to Total Cost of Indigent

Defense in Fiscal Year 2000:

11.76%

Calendar Year 1999 Indigent Defense Expenses,

Statewide:

$40,591,424

Percentage Increase in Indigent Defense Expenses: 10.06%

State Funding in Fiscal Year 2001 (offsetting county

expenses from CY 1999):

$4,890,000

Percentage Increase in Indigent Defense Funding,

Legislative Sources:

12.67%

Percentage of State Funding to Total Cost of Indigent

Defense in Fiscal Year 2001:

12.05%

63

Total Georgia Indigent Defense Council Funding in

Fiscal Year 2000 (offsetting county expenses from CY

1998):

$5,760,226

Total Georgia Indigent Defense Council Funding16 in

Fiscal Year 2001 (offsetting county expenses from CY

1999):

$6,310,226

Percentage Increase in Indigent Defense Funding, from all Georgia Indigent Defense Council Funding
9.55%

Calendar Year 1998 Indigent Defense Cases, Statewide: Calendar Year 1999 Indigent Defense Cases, Statewide:

167,764

167,497

Percentage Decrease17 in Indigent Defense Cases: 0.15%

16 Total Georgia Indigent Defense Council Funding for Grants to Counties subsidy program includes both Legislatively appropriated funds and interest earned on certain trust accounts maintained by court clerks and sheriffs. Since Clerks' and Sheriffs' funding is determined at the close of the Fiscal Year, this figure includes estimated Clerks' and Sheriffs' revenue.
17 In Fiscal Year 2000, 141counties applied for and received funding from the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, including one county that withdrew midway through the Fiscal Year. In Fiscal Year 2001, 136 counties applied for and received funding from the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Thus, the reduction in the total number of indigent cases from 167,764 to 167,497 based upon the reduction in the number of reporting counties is statistically insignificant. It can be presumed that, were data available from all 141 counties participating in Fiscal Year 2000, it would reveal an increase in the number of indigent cases in Fiscal Year 2001.
64

Statewide Indigent Defense Costs
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
(Calendar Years 1995 through 1999)

Millions

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

FY97-CY95

FY99-CY97

FY01-CY99

FY03-CY01 est

FY98-CY96

FY00-CY98

FY02-CY00 est

Year
FY03-CY01 est FY02-CY00 est FY01-CY99 FY00-CY98 FY99-CY97 FY98-CY96 FY97-CY95

Total Cost
$49,171,748 $44,676,070 $40,591,424 $36,880,229 $33,790,717 $31,499,299 $30,209,370

Percentage Increase
10.06% 10.06% 10.06% 9.14% 7.27% 4.27% 0.00%

State Funding
$6,701,411 $6,088,714 $4,890,000 $4,340,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $2,500,000

65

Statewide Indigent Defense Caseloads
Fiscal Years 1997 through 200318
(Calendar Years 1995 through 2001)

Thousands

250

200

150

100

50

0 FY97-CY95

FY98-CY96

FY99-CY97

FY00-CY98

FY01-CY99

FY03-CY01 est

FY02-CY00 est

Year
FY03-CY01 est FY02-CY00 est FY01-CY99 FY00-CY98 FY99-CY97 FY98-CY96 FY97-CY95
CY95-99 average

Number of Cases
219,418 191,708 167,497 167,764 165,264 147,608 102,149
14.45% increase

18 In Fiscal Year 2001, the GIDC received and approved 136 county applications for funding, compared with 140 applications in Fiscal Year 2000. Thus, while the reported caseload decreased from 167,764 to 167,497 over the comparable time, the numbers reflect the indigent caseload of four fewer counties. It may be presumed that actual indigent caseloads statewide increased between Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001.
66

Total Indigent Defense Costs Statewide versus State Funding
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2002
(Calendar Years 1995 through 2000)

Millions

60

50

40

30

Total Cost State Funding

20

10

0 FY97-CY95 FY99-CY97 FY01-CY99 FY03-CY01 est FY98-CY96 FY00-CY98 FY02-CY00 est
Average Annual Increase 8.48%

Year
FY03-CY01 est FY02-CY00 est FY01-CY99 FY00-CY98 FY99-CY97 FY98-CY96 FY97-CY95

Total Cost
$49,171,748 $44,676,070 $40,591,424 $36,880,229 $33,790,717 $31,499,299 $30,209,370

State Funding
$6,701,411 $6,088,714 $4,890,000 $4,340,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $2,500,000

67

Statewide Indigent Defense Delivery Systems in Georgia
Fiscal Year 2001
(Calendar Year 1999)

14.5%

12.6%

37.7%

35.2%

Public Defender Contract Defender Appointed Unfunded/Unknown

Public Defender

20

Contract Defender

56

Appointed

60

Unfunded/Unknown

23

68

Criminal Justice Funding
Fiscal Year 2001

59.6%

1.0% 0.4%

2.4% 3.1% 3.3%
4.0%

8.4%

17.8%

Indigent Defense Dept of Law Prosecution Trial Judges Parole GBI Public Safety Juvenile Justice Corrections

Agency
Indigent Defense Dept of Law Prosecution Trial Judges Parole GBI Public Safety Juvenile Justice Corrections
69

Funding
$5,893,227 $14,850,712 $36,357,424 $46,040,674 $49,808,029 $59,756,023 $126,008,934 $267,373,825 $893,763,467

Judicial Branch Funding
Fiscal Year 2001

39.4%

5.0%

0.2% 0.9% 1.2%
6.1%

6.9%

9.1%

Indigent Defense Judicial Qualifications ICJE Juvenile Courts Supreme Court Judicial Council Court of Appeals Prosecution Superior Courts

31.1%

Agency
Indigent Defense Judicial Qualifications ICJE Juvenile Courts Supreme Court Judicial Council Court of Appeals Prosecution Superior Courts
70

Funding
$5,893,227 $215,197
$1,066,142 $1,383,075 $7,094,074 $8,089,207 $10,602,953 $36,357,424 $46,040,674

Indigent Defense Funding
Fiscal Year 2001
(Calendar Year 1999)

12.0%

3.5%

County Funding State Appropriation Clerks' & Sheriffs' Interest

84.5%

Data Includes 136 Applicant Counties

County Funding State Appropriation Clerks' & Sheriffs' Interest Total Cost of Indigent Defense

$34,280,787 $4,890,000 $1,420,637 $40,591,424

71

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2001
(July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001)
Legend:
Light Blue - Counties Funded in FY2001 Dark Blue - Counties that Withdrew in FY2001 Red - Counties that Withdrew in FY2000 Green - Counties that Have Never Applied for Funding
Counties Not Funded in Fiscal Year 2001:
Appling, Atkinson, Bulloch, Catoosa, Chattahoochee, Chattooga, Clinch, Dade, Effingham, Gordon, Hancock, Jackson, Jasper, Jenkins, Marion, Lanier, Screven, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Turner, Walker and Walton
72

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2000
(July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000)
Legend:
Blue - Counties Funded in FY2000 Red - Counties that Withdrew in FY2000 Green - Counties that Have Never Applied for Funding

Counties Not Funded in Fiscal Year 2000:

Baldwin, Berrien, Bulloch, Chattahoochee, Catoosa, Chattooga, Clinch, Coffee, Dade, Effingham, Gordon, Jackson, Jenkins, Marion, Lanier, Screven, Talbot, Taylor, Turner and Walker

Notes



Baldwin County applied for funding in Fiscal Year 2000 and was approved subject to compliance

with the minimum hourly rates of compensation required under Guideline 2.6 ($45 per hour for out-

of-court work, $60 per hour for in-court work). Baldwin County subsequently notified the Georgia

Indigent Defense Council that it would not be able to raise its minimum hourly rates to comply with

2.6, and withdrew its application for funding. Thereafter, Baldwin County notified the Georgia

Indigent Defense Council that it would be able to raise its minimum hourly rates to comply with 2.6,

and Baldwin County received the second distribution of Grants to Counties funding as well as the

distribution of Clerks' and Sheriffs' funding.



Clinch and Coffee Counties had applied for and received funding in Fiscal Year 1999, however

neither county applied for funding in Fiscal Year 2000.



Jackson County applied for funding in Fiscal Year 2000 but gave notice of its intent to withdraw

from the Grants to Counties subsidy program, effective January 1, 2000. Prior to the notice of

withdrawal, Jackson County did receive $7,549.42 in State funding in Fiscal Year 2000.

None of the other listed counties has ever received funding from the Georgia Indigent Defense Council.

73

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2001
(July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001)

COUNTY

APPLING

ATKINSON

BACON

*

BAKER

*

BALDWIN

*

BANKS

*

BARROW

*

BARTOW

*

BEN HILL

*

BERRIEN

*

BIBB

*

BLECKLEY

*

BRANTLEY

*

BROOKS

*

BRYAN

*

BULLOCH

BURKE

*

BUTTS

*

CALHOUN

*

CAMDEN

*

CANDLER

*

CARROLL

*

CATOOSA

CHARLTON

*

CHATHAM

*

CHATTAHOOCHEE

CHATTOOGA

CHEROKEE

*

CLARKE

*

CLAY

*

CLAYTON

*

1990 Pop. US Census
15744 6213 9566 3615 39530 10308 29721 55911 16245 14153 149967 10430 11077 15398 15438 43125 20579 15326 5013 30167 7744 71422 42464 8496 216935 16934 22242 90204 87594 3364 182052

Total CY1999 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1999 Indigent Def. Expenditures

0

$0.00

0

$0.00

99

$136,052.00

26

$9,923.00

981

$180,199.69

103

$21,832.00

520

$123,785.00

505

$155,650.00

509

$25,300.63

61

$18,000.00

2740

$990,497.00

143

$12,345.74

371

$48,546.67

143

$48,823.26

902

$164,106.22

0

$0.00

355

$86,863.33

223

$63,618.43

110

$13,850.00

637

$110,150.00

49

$17,859.55

1423

$382,757.65

0

$0.00

165

$49,300.00

5955 $1,583,508.38

0

$0.00

0

$0.00

1999

$504,699.00

3953 $1,004,826.00

58

$20,245.00

7243 $1,517,263.88

FY 2001 Award
of Funds
$0.00 $0.00 $9,006.01 $1,626.19 $27,441.10 $4,658.35 $18,044.70 $26,239.82 $10,349.40 $5,132.46 $106,874.08 $4,699.57 $8,546.50 $7,503.87 $19,530.21 $0.00 $12,491.44 $8,857.10 $2,978.27 $18,756.01 $3,282.00 $48,475.32 $0.00 $5,876.15 $180,030.36 $0.00 $0.00 $64,041.51 $102,436.40 $2,284.41 $180,499.05

75

COUNTY
CLINCH COBB COFFEE COLQUITT COLUMBIA COOK COWETA CRAWFORD CRISP DADE DAWSON DECATUR DEKALB DODGE DOOLY DOUGHERTY DOUGLAS EARLY ECHOLS EFFINGHAM ELBERT EMANUEL EVANS FANNIN FAYETTE FLOYD FORSYTH FRANKLIN FULTON GILMER GLASCOCK GLYNN GORDON GRADY GREENE GWINNETT HABERSHAM HALL HANCOCK

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1999 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1999 Indigent Def. Expenditures

FY 2001 Award
of Funds

6160

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

447745

11590 $2,836,421.00

$347,412.22

*

29592

725

$98,802.00

$19,001.65

*

36645

482

$161,859.34

$21,070.72

*

66031

364

$148,034.24

$27,290.47

*

13456

68

$18,000.00

$5,012.65

*

53853

818

$166,214.27

$29,155.11

*

8991

61

$12,700.12

$3,527.82

*

20011

257

$31,503.71

$9,161.56

13147

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

9429

107

$119,498.12

$8,382.18

*

25511

211

$70,493.00

$11,762.52

*

545837

16010 $4,093,288.00

$467,344.80

*

17607

427

$20,842.63

$9,739.63

*

9901

92

$16,598.89

$4,231.42

*

96311

3170 $1,129,139.64

$102,158.93

*

71120

2562

$553,412.00

$66,330.93

*

11854

253

$53,000.00

$7,786.51

*

2334

25

$14,808.76

$1,467.26

25687

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

18949

513

$56,023.28

$12,351.10

*

20546

133

$47,389.75

$8,737.03

*

8724

189

$78,843.56

$7,357.54

*

15992

90

$48,188.97

$7,122.79

*

62415

588

$242,336.53

$32,282.19

*

81251

2319

$453,775.20

$62,696.72

*

44083

1626

$269,762.75

$38,542.05

*

16650

328

$50,323.30

$9,702.01

*

648951

31536 $7,840,301.00

$796,704.64

*

13368

187

$41,699.05

$7,098.64

*

2357

6

$1,519.27

$754.91

*

62496

1659

$606,074.89

$57,332.86

35072

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

20279

208

$56,229.00

$9,749.86

*

11793

714

$53,824.81

$12,289.41

*

352910

5893 $2,546,251.00

$254,749.60

*

27621

316

$170,138.99

$17,354.66

*

95428

2660

$806,006.00

$83,981.93

8908

0

$0.00

$0.00

76

COUNTY

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1999 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1999 Indigent Def. Expenditures

FY 2001 Award
of Funds

HARALSON

*

HARRIS

*

HART

*

HEARD

*

HENRY

*

HOUSTON

*

IRWIN

*

JACKSON

JASPER

JEFF DAVIS

*

JEFFERSON

*

JENKINS

JOHNSON

*

JONES

*

LAMAR

*

LANIER

LAURENS

*

LEE

*

LIBERTY

*

LINCOLN

*

LONG

*

LOWNDES

*

LUMPKIN

*

MACON

*

MADISON

*

MARION

MCDUFFIE

*

MCINTOSH

*

MERIWETHER

*

MILLER

*

MITCHELL

*

MONROE

*

MONTGOMERY

*

MORGAN

*

MURRAY

*

MUSCOGEE

*

NEWTON

*

OCONEE

*

OGLETHORPE

*

21966 17788 19712 8628 58741 89208 8649 30005 8453 12032 17408 8247 8329 20739 13038 5531 39988 16250 52745 7442 6202 75981 14573 13114 21050 5590 20119 8634 22411 6280 20275 17113 7163 12883 26147 179278 41808 17618 9763

216 101 298 97 2823 4150 88
0 0 135 235 0 113 325 293 0 654 421 1121 125 171 1211 238 175 248 0 352 360 468 55 272 136 68 121 283 11983 2318 279 154

$51,746.19 $69,766.74 $58,080.30 $15,000.00 $481,682.19 $831,241.00 $33,825.03
$0.00 $0.00 $52,787.89 $40,392.18 $0.00 $32,542.50 $116,242.46 $73,861.28 $0.00 $156,880.00 $41,250.00 $358,000.00 $25,183.09 $168,713.53 $452,450.75 $71,117.01 $50,701.89 $54,778.73 $0.00 $59,222.83 $88,362.06 $77,528.00 $12,291.37 $56,229.00 $30,930.68 $8,482.87 $116,440.00 $81,044.00 $933,701.00 $476,009.01 $73,552.92 $25,520.35

$10,102.55 $8,580.57 $10,547.15 $3,872.64 $62,652.75 $97,818.16 $4,546.66
$0.00 $0.00 $6,677.66 $8,602.56 $0.00 $4,652.16 $13,422.39 $9,332.72 $0.00 $23,445.95 $10,134.84 $39,506.42 $4,234.26 $10,111.22 $50,440.08 $9,101.16 $7,274.89 $10,288.76 $0.00 $11,228.27 $9,379.59 $13,710.18 $2,722.06 $10,371.59 $7,179.66 $2,933.72 $9,326.91 $13,058.36 $202,444.80 $52,944.94 $10,418.98 $5,155.82

77

COUNTY
PAULDING PEACH PICKENS PIERCE PIKE POLK PULASKI PUTNAM QUITMAN RABUN RANDOLPH RICHMOND ROCKDALE SCHLEY SCREVEN SEMINOLE SPALDING STEPHENS STEWART SUMTER TALBOT TALIAFERRO TATTNALL TAYLOR TELFAIR TERRELL THOMAS TIFT TOOMBS TOWNS TREUTLEN TROUP TURNER TWIGGS UNION UPSON WALKER WALTON WARE

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1999 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1999 Indigent Def. Expenditures

FY 2001 Award
of Funds

*

41611

448

$118,507.00

$20,337.94

*

21189

298

$102,237.00

$12,718.56

*

14432

216

$102,674.69

$10,116.29

*

13328

215

$48,654.00

$7,639.62

*

10224

88

$128,599.00

$8,777.09

*

33815

335

$79,351.00

$15,563.91

*

8108

198

$10,400.00

$4,530.60

*

14137

332

$102,396.00

$11,154.41

*

2209

6

$1,442.50

$711.92

*

11648

104

$41,256.00

$5,809.37

*

8023

155

$12,678.78

$4,180.73

*

189719

3284

$779,564.95

$114,415.96

*

54091

1251

$290,922.00

$38,440.83

*

3588

53

$10,525.59

$1,905.86

13842

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

9010

103

$8,000.00

$3,752.93

*

54457

1809

$430,000.00

$49,554.55

*

23257

257

$113,705.00

$13,337.67

5654

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

30228

1722

$241,804.50

$34,617.90

6524

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

1915

23

$6,791.78

$1,012.89

*

17722

614

$100,249.00

$14,779.10

7642

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

11000

175

$13,018.76

$5,191.69

*

10653

213

$306,783.00

$17,264.40

*

38986

756

$295,707.49

$29,743.19

*

34998

589

$166,245.53

$21,844.05

*

24072

286

$79,990.41

$12,485.78

*

6754

92

$11,348.00

$3,172.05

*

5994

54

$20,635.00

$2,970.27

*

55536

2167

$373,996.23

$51,080.46

8703

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

9806

71

$10,735.00

$3,765.97

*

11993

126

$36,514.91

$5,926.10

*

26300

553

$175,795.08

$19,531.98

58340

0

$0.00

$0.00

38586

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

35471

2854

$286,686.05

$48,849.91

78

COUNTY
WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH
TOTALS

1990 Pop. US Census

*

6078

*

19112

*

22356

*

2263

*

4903

*

13006

*

72462

*

7008

*

10597

*

10228

*

19745

136 6,478,216

Total CY1999 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1999 Indigent Def. Expenditures

65

$15,247.20

99

$44,664.53

304

$92,020.81

49

$5,190.86

53

$5,811.82

168

$32,034.75

1220

$296,600.00

42

$16,960.00

124

$21,050.49

199

$36,766.67

180

$39,000.00

167,497 $40,591,423.73

FY 2001 Award
of Funds
$2,883.61 $7,910.08 $12,681.36 $1,295.45 $2,071.13 $6,428.05 $43,320.47 $2,979.32 $4,909.25 $6,170.72 $8,641.54
$4,890,000.00

79

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 200019
(July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000)

COUNTY
APPLING ATKINSON BACON BAKER BALDWIN20 BANKS BARROW BARTOW BEN HILL BERRIEN BIBB BLECKLEY BRANTLEY BROOKS BRYAN BULLOCH BURKE BUTTS CALHOUN CAMDEN CANDLER CARROLL

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1998 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1998 Indigent Def. Expenditures

Total FY2000 Award of State
Funds

*

15,744

125

$133,310.57

$10,095.44

*

6,213

28

$11,400.00

$2,173.12

*

9,566

236

$122,197.15

$9,141.75

*

3,615

27

$9,923.00

$1,486.71

*

39,530

1,474

$244,590.28

$16,933.68

*

10,308

97

$20,718.25

$4,112.93

*

29,721

580

$108,307.32

$16,368.35

*

55,911

709

$139,476.79

$24,956.90

*

16,245

604

$33,839.64

$10,422.65

14,153

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

149,967

2,579

$807,432.66

$89,892.29

*

10,430

147

$16,924.05

$4,423.81

*

11,077

380

$54,654.37

$8,078.65

*

15,398

119

$60,923.78

$7,103.62

*

15,438

633

$132,084.49

$14,358.85

43,125

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

20,579

456

$129,439.28

$13,952.46

*

15,326

246

$52,651.69

$7,856.09

*

5,013

97

$13,885.00

$2,580.66

*

30,167

475

$111,195.00

$15,682.38

*

7,744

58

$15,996.62

$2,978.56

*

71,422

1,152

$280,470.10

$38,044.87

19 Grants to Counties funding subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 included an initial amount of $4,100,000 from the FY2000 budget plus an additional $240,000 from the supplemental budget.
20 Baldwin County did not participate in the Grants to Counties subsidy program for the first distribution of funds in Fiscal Year 2000. Although Baldwin County had applied and was approved for funding, that approval was contingent upon compliance with the Supreme Court's minimum hourly rates of compensation required under Guideline 2.6 ($45 per hour for out-of-court work, $60 per hour for in-court work). Baldwin County was subsequently able to effect the changes necessary to comply with this standard, and received the second distribution of funds from the main Fiscal Year 2000 budget, as well as the distribution of funds from the supplemental budget.
81

COUNTY

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1998 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1998 Indigent Def. Expenditures

Total FY2000 Award of State
Funds

CATOOSA

CHARLTON

*

CHATHAM

*

CHATTAHOOCHEE

CHATTOOGA

CHEROKEE

*

CLAYTON

*

CLINCH

COBB

*

COFFEE

COLQUITT

*

COLUMBIA

*

COOK

*

COWETA

*

CRAWFORD

*

CRISP

*

DADE

DAWSON

*

DECATUR

*

DEKALB

*

DODGE

*

DOOLY

*

DOUGHERTY

*

DOUGLAS

*

EARLY

*

ECHOLS

*

EFFINGHAM

ELBERT

*

EMANUEL

*

EVANS

*

FANNIN

*

FAYETTE

*

FLOYD

*

FORSYTH

*

FRANKLIN

*

FULTON

*

GILMER

*

GLASCOCK

*

GLYNN

*

42,464 8,496 216,935 16,934 22,242 90,204 182,052 6,160 447,745 29,592 36,645 66,031 13,456 53,853 8,991 20,011 13,147 9,429 25,511 545,837 17,607 9,901 96,311 71,120 11,854 2,334 25,687 18,949 20,546 8,724 15,992 62,415 81,251 44,083 16,650 648,951 13,368 2,357 62,496

0 174 6,277
0 0 1,549 7,251 0 11,453 0 534 390 79 1,080 44 278 0 84 284 16,697 368 147 3,604 2,431 217 26 0 459 144 237 100 375 2,370 1,160 355 31,493 143 3 1,823

$0.00 $68,939.18 $2,080,832.00
$0.00 $0.00 $447,719.87 $1,234,636.00 $0.00 $2,464,495.00 $0.00 $173,906.22 $117,023.78 $18,796.72 $149,212.34 $25,835.00 $40,153.06 $0.00 $45,521.69 $74,463.00 $3,840,236.00 $28,030.71 $20,860.81 $966,876.93 $499,817.00 $55,666.00 $16,204.44 $0.00 $58,258.40 $39,152.92 $58,574.34 $26,616.00 $223,156.77 $374,763.89 $260,207.74 $44,654.54 $7,008,167.00 $60,735.03 $1,031.00 $635,566.00

$0.00 $6,249.07 $188,047.61
$0.00 $0.00 $52,552.21 $154,732.92 $0.00 $302,903.04 $0.00 $20,211.81 $23,730.10 $4,656.58 $28,052.79 $3,543.43 $8,755.98 $0.00 $4,770.28 $11,473.58 $425,863.73 $8,481.06 $4,453.08 $92,240.17 $57,671.41 $6,896.92 $1,420.61 $0.00 $10,779.78 $7,687.45 $6,438.05 $5,726.91 $26,928.14 $54,623.90 $30,795.42 $8,796.92 $703,217.80 $6,819.29 $628.59 $55,726.02

82

COUNTY
GORDON GRADY GREENE GWINNETT HANCOCK HARALSON HARRIS HART HEARD HENRY HOUSTON IRWIN JACKSON21 JASPER JEFF DAVIS JEFFERSON JENKINS JOHNSON JONES LAMAR LANIER LAURENS LEE LIBERTY LINCOLN LONG LOWNDES LUMPKIN MACON MADISON MARION MCDUFFIE MCINTOSH MERIWETHER MILLER

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1998 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1998 Indigent Def. Expenditures

Total FY2000 Award of State
Funds

35,072

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

20,279

160

$64,194.00

$8,750.41

*

11,793

708

$41,352.83

$10,555.39

*

352,910

4,296

$1,498,088.90

$180,365.83

*

8,908

253

$43,078.66

$6,008.32

*

21,966

246

$40,756.81

$8,969.75

*

17,788

96

$29,613.74

$6,238.96

*

19,712

368

$55,854.20

$10,081.34

*

8,628

125

$15,000.00

$3,728.30

*

58,741

2,265

$343,884.22

$47,131.39

*

89,208

4,252

$511,902.48

$78,179.22

*

8,649

98

$39,641.60

$4,473.01

*

30,005

695

$75,822.25

$7,549.42

*

8,453

122

$37,835.00

$4,562.11

*

12,032

115

$45,142.00

$5,643.51

*

17,408

753

$32,464.28

$11,931.75

8,247

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

8,329

168

$33,216.54

$4,747.28

*

20,739

487

$80,310.00

$12,318.77

*

13,038

377

$90,829.33

$9,948.36

5,531

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

39,988

774

$176,598.52

$23,186.73

*

16,250

225

$30,228.00

$7,009.95

*

52,745

1,199

$357,250.00

$37,028.22

*

7,442

84

$22,974.95

$3,406.45

*

6,202

126

$164,546.00

$9,061.94

*

75,981

1,216

$479,350.04

$47,535.28

*

14,573

232

$65,563.41

$8,065.41

*

13,114

170

$31,373.57

$7,375.17

*

21,050

350

$48,226.57

$9,943.89

5,590

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

20,119

262

$42,428.74

$8,733.46

*

8,634

336

$52,800.00

$7,043.16

*

22,411

415

$73,642.17

$11,832.75

*

6,280

66

$19,458.31

$2,835.19

21 Jackson County applied for funding in Fiscal Year 2000 and received the first distribution of Grants to Counties funding. Subsequently, Jackson County gave notice of its intent to withdraw from the Grants to Counties subsidy program, effective January 1, 2000.
83

COUNTY
MITCHELL MONROE MONTGOMERY MORGAN MURRAY MUSCOGEE OGLETHORPE PAULDING PEACH PICKENS PIERCE PIKE POLK PULASKI PUTNAM QUITMAN RABUN RANDOLPH RICHMOND ROCKDALE SCHLEY SCREVEN SEMINOLE SPALDING STEPHENS STEWART SUMTER TALBOT TALIAFERRO TATTNALL TAYLOR TELFAIR TERRELL THOMAS TIFT TOOMBS TOWNS TREUTLEN TROUP

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1998 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1998 Indigent Def. Expenditures

Total FY2000 Award of State
Funds

*

20,275

235

$59,474.25

$9,210.49

*

17,113

217

$48,836.27

$7,881.24

*

7,163

91

$11,453.31

$2,945.51

*

12,883

296

$108,049.16

$9,892.02

*

26,147

291

$54,664.00

$10,904.07

*

179,278

12,316

$742,558.00

$178,364.60

*

9,763

153

$47,052.30

$5,505.90

*

41,611

328

$110,000.00

$17,095.05

*

21,189

241

$98,600.00

$11,024.74

*

14,432

211

$96,533.42

$9,073.10

*

13,328

233

$82,594.00

$8,449.48

*

10,224

83

$18,454.00

$3,882.67

*

33,815

368

$57,000.00

$13,489.24

*

8,108

259

$14,001.82

$4,721.53

*

14,137

444

$112,937.00

$11,661.44

*

2,209

9

$6,945.71

$878.58

*

11,648

102

$44,992.00

$5,433.82

*

8,023

95

$20,303.05

$3,534.45

*

189,719

2,711

$726,123.10

$97,300.21

*

54,091

1,026

$204,003.00

$29,806.35

*

3,588

163

$8,684.25

$2,605.26

13,842

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

9,010

85

$22,838.25

$3,783.55

*

54,457

1,853

$412,000.00

$45,242.70

*

23,257

268

$115,000.00

$12,398.28

*

5,654

125

$16,000.00

$3,058.67

*

30,228

2,123

$201,583.00

$33,489.72

6,524

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

1,915

18

$5,200.04

$817.25

*

17,722

489

$103,246.00

$12,522.08

7,642

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

11,000

193

$17,864.58

$4,993.90

*

10,653

262

$277,789.95

$15,767.52

*

38,986

731

$295,253.92

$27,260.70

*

34,998

531

$150,000.00

$18,849.49

*

24,072

267

$46,516.48

$9,880.52

*

6,754

50

$9,345.11

$2,410.88

*

5,994

316

$20,940.00

$4,983.36

*

55,536

2,563

$281,172.00

$46,463.75

84

COUNTY
TURNER TWIGGS UNION UPSON WARE WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH
TOTALS

1990 Pop. US Census

Total CY1998 Indigent Caseload

Total CY1998 Indigent Def. Expenditures

Total FY2000 Award of State
Funds

8,703

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

9,806

60

$14,031.76

$3,409.91

*

11,993

98

$34,545.27

$5,069.15

*

26,300

496

$135,000.00

$15,881.34

*

35,471

2,793

$422,549.00

$49,245.74

*

6,078

52

$31,037.00

$3,123.27

*

19,112

258

$36,565.70

$8,227.38

*

22,356

344

$85,756.00

$11,685.01

*

2,263

73

$5,012.74

$1,367.56

*

4,903

69

$8,400.44

$2,096.25

*

13,006

169

$44,248.74

$6,306.59

*

72,462

1,191

$287,809.00

$38,919.18

*

7,008

29

$13,784.01

$2,465.41

*

10,597

199

$23,031.47

$5,153.56

*

10,228

206

$48,120.00

$6,116.39

*

19,745

144

$71,313.00

$8,645.51

141

6,478,216

167,764

$36,880,228.64

$4,340,000.00

85

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program Award of Clerks' and Sheriffs' Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2000
(July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000)

COUNTY
APPLING ATKINSON BACON BAKER BALDWIN22 BANKS BARROW BARTOW BEN HILL BERRIEN BIBB BLECKLEY BRANTLEY BROOKS BRYAN BULLOCH BURKE BUTTS CALHOUN CAMDEN CANDLER CARROLL CATOOSA CHARLTON CHATHAM CHATTAHOOCHEE

Clerks & Sheriffs FY2000

*

$3,294.73

*

$709.53

*

$2,985.60

*

$485.52

*

$10,401.17

*

$1,343.67

*

$5,350.37

*

$8,155.14

*

$3,411.57

$0.00

*

$29,369.16

*

$1,446.07

*

$2,642.30

*

$2,319.43

*

$4,695.04

$0.00

*

$4,559.38

*

$2,567.37

*

$843.70

*

$5,124.62

*

$972.85

*

$12,431.94

$0.00

*

$2,041.35

*

$61,446.54

$0.00

22 As noted above, Baldwin County did not participate in a portion of the Grants to Counties subsidy program in Fiscal Year 2000, but was able to satisfy the Supreme Court's minimum hourly rates of compensation required under Guideline 2.6 ($45 per hour for out-of-court work, $60 per hour for in-court work) after the first distribution of Grants to Counties funds. Thereafter, Baldwin County received the second distribution of funds from the main Fiscal Year 2000 budget, the distribution of funds from the supplemental budget, and the distribution of Clerks' and Sheriffs' funds.
87

COUNTY
CHATTOOGA CHEROKEE CLARKE CLAY CLAYTON CLINCH COBB COFFEE COLQUITT COLUMBIA COOK COWETA CRAWFORD CRISP DADE DAWSON DECATUR DEKALB DODGE DOOLY DOUGHERTY DOUGLAS EARLY ECHOLS EFFINGHAM ELBERT EMANUEL EVANS FANNIN FAYETTE FLOYD FORSYTH FRANKLIN FULTON GILMER GLASCOCK GLYNN GORDON GRADY GREENE

Clerks & Sheriffs FY2000

$0.00

*

$17,170.74

*

$33,482.90

*

$521.37

*

$50,605.09

$0.00

*

$99,015.39

$0.00

*

$6,602.84

*

$7,749.59

*

$1,512.90

*

$9,171.82

*

$1,156.79

*

$2,861.84

$0.00

*

$1,557.56

*

$3,748.30

*

$139,213.62

*

$2,773.89

*

$1,455.55

*

$30,150.49

*

$18,855.92

*

$2,253.77

*

$463.82

$0.00

*

$3,525.18

*

$2,510.79

*

$2,104.30

*

$1,870.38

*

$8,791.25

*

$17,862.40

*

$10,066.41

*

$2,876.46

*

$229,936.45

*

$2,227.06

*

$205.19

*

$18,208.09

$0.00

*

$2,857.56

*

$3,456.57

88

COUNTY
GWINNETT HABERSHAM HALL HANCOCK HARALSON HARRIS HART HEARD HENRY HOUSTON IRWIN JACKSON23 JASPER JEFF DAVIS JEFFERSON JENKINS JOHNSON JONES LAMAR LANIER LAURENS LEE LIBERTY LINCOLN LONG LOWNDES LUMPKIN MACON MADISON MARION MCDUFFIE MCINTOSH MERIWETHER MILLER

Clerks & Sheriffs FY2000

*

$58,915.08

*

$4,575.78

*

$20,588.14

*

$1,964.60

*

$2,931.04

*

$2,037.38

*

$3,295.69

*

$1,218.73

*

$15,415.76

*

$25,580.51

*

$1,460.88

*

$0.00

*

$1,490.41

*

$1,843.10

*

$3,906.70

$0.00

*

$1,551.72

*

$4,027.57

*

$3,251.85

$0.00

*

$7,577.89

*

$2,291.24

*

$12,099.62

*

$1,112.83

*

$2,956.91

*

$15,527.02

*

$2,635.22

*

$1,906.04

*

$3,250.65

$0.00

*

$2,854.17

*

$2,303.61

*

$3,867.81

*

$926.14

23 As noted above, Jackson County applied for funding in Fiscal Year 2000 and received the first distribution of Grants to Counties funding, but subsequently gave notice of its intent to withdraw from the Grants to Counties subsidy program, effective January 1, 2000. Jackson County did not receive the second distribution of funds from the main Fiscal Year 2000 budget, the distribution of funds from the supplemental budget, or the distribution of Clerks' and Sheriffs' funds.
89

COUNTY

MITCHELL

*

MONROE

*

MONTGOMERY

*

MORGAN

*

MURRAY

*

MUSCOGEE

*

NEWTON

*

OCONEE

*

OGLETHORPE

*

PAULDING

*

PEACH

*

PICKENS

*

PIERCE

*

PIKE

*

POLK

*

PULASKI

*

PUTNAM

*

QUITMAN

*

RABUN

*

RANDOLPH

*

RICHMOND

*

ROCKDALE

*

SCHLEY

*

SCREVEN

SEMINOLE

*

SPALDING

*

STEPHENS

*

STEWART

*

SUMTER

*

TALBOT

TALIAFERRO

*

TATTNALL

*

TAYLOR

TELFAIR

*

TERRELL

*

THOMAS

*

TIFT

*

TOOMBS

*

TOWNS

*

TREUTLEN

*

90

Clerks & Sheriffs FY2000
$3,009.10 $2,575.14
$962.72 $3,231.75 $3,562.89 $58,414.27 $12,819.97 $2,952.99 $1,798.82 $5,583.14 $3,600.65 $2,963.20 $2,760.29 $1,268.32 $4,407.92 $1,545.23 $3,811.73
$286.78 $1,774.44 $1,154.84 $31,790.60 $9,742.25
$852.96 $0.00
$1,235.93 $14,791.01 $4,049.12 $1,000.16 $10,963.49
$0.00 $266.95 $4,093.57
$0.00 $1,632.91 $5,145.83 $8,904.72 $6,158.58 $3,228.56
$787.55 $1,631.55

COUNTY
TROUP TURNER TWIGGS UNION UPSON WALKER WALTON WARE WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH
TOTALS

Clerks & Sheriffs FY2000

*

$15,204.12

$0.00

*

$1,113.70

*

$1,655.54

*

$5,189.50

$0.00

*

$9,028.25

*

$16,113.64

*

$1,019.71

*

$2,689.04

*

$3,818.15

*

$447.51

*

$685.21

*

$2,060.46

*

$12,717.84

*

$804.91

*

$1,685.04

*

$1,998.96

*

$2,862.25

141 $1,420,637.21

91

The Future of Indigent Defense in Georgia
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council continues to recommend that the State of Georgia commit to sharing equally with the counties the responsibility for providing indigent defense. The Council suggests that the State meet its fifty percent share through a combination of appropriations from the general fund, the interest from the Clerks' and Sheriffs' trust accounts, and other funding sources such as additional filing fees in civil cases.
The cost of indigent defense in Georgia now exceeds 40 million dollars a year and the counties pay more than 85% of the costs of providing this constitutionally mandated representation. The cost of indigent defense rises steadily each year by five to ten percent. County taxpayers are ill-equipped to meet these rising costs, which often bear no relation to the size or the relative wealth of the county.
While the Council had hoped to accomplish equal participation of both counties and the state by 1999, we realize that it will take longer than originally anticipated. Currently, 100% of the state appropriation of $4,890,000 is distributed to the 136 participating counties with nothing retained for administrative expenses, and an additional $1,003,227 is used to specifically assist with the defense of death penalty cases. Our goal is to assist all 159 counties during the upcoming year. It is, therefore, crucial that the Council receive its total appropriation request of $7,698,580 to assist the counties with indigent defense, and assist with the enormous cost of defending death penalty cases. As the costs only continue to rise, it is more important than ever to receive increased financial assistance from the state.
In 1997, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council re-committed itself to providing the highest quality services and assisting the counties in their delivery of indigent defense services. One form of this assistance was to provide professional education seminars at the lowest possible cost, such that indigent defenders could improve their skills in all areas of criminal defense practice. That commitment showed its promise in 2000, when the Georgia Indigent Defense Council hosted literally dozens of criminal defense related seminars. This year, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council will continue to host the most seminars of any professional education provider on topics related to criminal law, juvenile law, and mental health issues, with nearly all such events at no charge to the participants.
In the coming year, the Council looks forward to the work of the Supreme Court's Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense, and the Speaker's Joint Committee on Indigent Defense. For the first time in more than twenty years, Georgia is consciously examining its indigent defense delivery systems. Combined with the Department of Audits' "Performance Audit" of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, and the Statewide Indigent Defense Symposium, there is reason to hope that great strides will be taken in the near future.
(K:\COMPLY\Annual Report\Annual Report 2000.wpd, Revised March 15, 2001)
93

Georgia Indigent Defense Council 985 Ponce de Leon Avenue !Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 894-2595!(800) 676-4432 Facsimile (404) 206-5154!Internet web site: www.gidc.com