2001 annual report [Jan. 1, 2002]

THE GEORGIA INDIGENT DEFENSE COUNCIL
2001 ANNUAL REPORT

Michael B. Shapiro Executive Director
January 1, 2002
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 2002, our funding will directly affect more than 97% of the populace as we distribute $5,390,000 in legislatively appropriated funds to 152 counties participating in our Grants to Counties program.1 That amount will be supplemented with an estimated $1,500,000 in interest gathered from clerks' and sheriffs' trust accounts. All told, nearly $7 million will be added to the funds allocated by the counties to provide attorneys for those who cannot afford representation.
In 2000, indigent defense statewide cost $48,935,814, a remarkable 20.6% increase over the previous year. Of this amount, state funds offset only 11.01% 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,
1 In Fiscal Year 2002, the Georgia Indigent Defense Council is funding a record number of counties. All counties that applied for funding were approved by the Council at the August, 2001 meeting. The seven counties that chose not to apply for State funding are: the four counties in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit (Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade & Walker), plus Jackson, Jones and Putnam Counties.

January 1, 2002 Page 2
mandatory penalties result in more cases being tried to conclusion, rather than being disposed of with 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 growing 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 in 2000. 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 we were successful in getting a legislative appropriation that funded more than one-half of the second year of this new grant program. In Fiscal Year 2002, forty-nine counties applied for Improvement Grants, seeking more than $1.5 Million. The combined $237,935 in legislatively appropriated funds and $170,065 in I.O.L.T.A. funds is helping forty-three counties make significant improvements to their indigent defense programs in areas as varied as early intervention, caseload reduction, mental health specialty, public defender office enhancement, juvenile law and technology. The Improvement Grants funding supplements the combined $6.9 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 upcoming fiscal year. Our budget request seeks to increase Grants to Counties funding to 18.65% of the total cost of indigent defense. The increase, $3,736,529, will take State funding for indigent defense to $9,127,589. Additionally, our Improvement Grants request of $162,065 will take that program's funding up to $400,000, providing much needed "seed" money for the counties.
We urge you to support these funding requests.
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

Some Thoughts 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
"The Sixth Amendment's requirement that `the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence' was made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court holding that `in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him."
- United States Supreme Court Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
"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 Supreme Court of Georgia
"We [must] find reasonable solutions that we all can support. We owe a debt of gratitude to those on the Blue Ribbon Commission [on Indigent Defense ]. I am confident that the Commission's report will be based on reliable data and that its recommendations will be sound. It will be something that all of us can support, and with one unified voice we will be able to vastly improve indigent defense in Georgia."
- Hon. Norman Fletcher Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Georgia

"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 Former Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Georgia
"In the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress declared that all men are created equal. This set the stage for those that would get the benefits in the future. Women and African-Americans were not allowed to vote or sit on juries.
When I started the practice of law, defendants were without any formal means of representation. Poor people were without counsel, without peers on their jury, and without a voice in government. So then, I ask, where was the equality that we heard about in the Declaration of Independence?
Over this period of fifty years, there has been a long, hard battle to improve the system. We have faced many hurdles, including the unpopularity of the cause. We hear often, `it's not my problem, let the lawyers deal with it.' So let me quote John Adams, who said `all people must be afforded justice. Justice belongs to everybody or nobody at all."
- Hon. Harold Clarke Former Chief Justice Supreme Court of Georgia
"It is clear that changes are necessary, but we must work together. Funding is a legislative responsibility, however providing adequate representation is also the right thing to do. The reality is that many people are faced with the possibility of an unjust outcome because of an unjust and complicated system without the benefit of competent counsel. No one can bear the burden of indigent defense alone. It must be shared."
- Hon. Roy L. Barnes Governor

Table of Contents
The State of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The History of Indigent Defense Since Gideon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A Future Partnership Between The State And The Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Current State of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Public Defender Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Contract Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appointed Attorney or "Panel" Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Facts on Local Indigent Defense Programs Receiving State Funds For Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Analysis of Indigent Defense Cases Calendar Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Statutory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Division Activities and Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appellate Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Governmental Relations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Juvenile Advocacy Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Mental Health Advocacy Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Multi-County Public Defender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Number of New Death Penalty Case Files Opened Each Year 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Number of Death Sentences Issues in Georgia Each Year 1973-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Professional Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Georgia Indigent Defense Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Georgia Indigent Defense Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

State Funding of Indigent Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Comparison of State & Total Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Years 2001 & 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Statewide Indigent Defense Costs Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Statewide Indigent Defense Caseloads Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Total Indigent Defense Costs Statewide versus State Funding Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Statewide Indigent Defense Delivery Systems in Georgia Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Criminal Justice Funding Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Judicial Branch Funding Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Comparisons by County for Fiscal Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 The Future of Indigent Defense in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
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, $5,390,000 of state funds is appropriated to assist eligible counties with the costs of indigent defense. An additional $237,935 in state funding is appropriated for the Council's Improvement Grant program, providing much needed "seed" money for new programming. The Office of the Multi-County Public Defender is appropriated $1,032,000 which is used to assist counties with death penalty cases. The Council has distributed an additional $1,860,000 this past fiscal year from the Clerks' and Sheriffs' Trust Account Program. The Council's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request of $10,559,589 would provide important financial assistance to the counties for indigent defense.
Indigent Defense Funding in Georgia
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council has three grant programs: the Grants to Counties, Improvement Grants and the Council's Discretionary Grant program. Grants to Counties is the Council's primary funding program, offering financial assistance to applicant counties based on a formula taking into account population, indigent defense caseloads and indigent defense expenditures. In 2001, the Council funded a record 152 of Georgia's 159 counties, and will be distributing $5.39 Million in State appropriated funds and an estimated $1.5 Million in interest gathered on Clerks' and Sheriffs' trust accounts.
The Improvement Grants program, created in 2000, offers "seed" money for new programming that will make a significant improvement to the local indigent defense delivery system. Seven program areas have been designated: early intervention, caseload reduction, mental health specialty, public defender office enhancement, juvenile law, technology and a seventh "catch-all" category. In 2001
3

forty-three counties shared a combined $408,000 in state and private funding. Counties need not be receiving Grants to Counties funding to apply for Improvement Grants funding.
The Council's newest grant program, the Discretionary Grant, provides an additional $20,000 per year in indigent defense funding. This one-time grant assists counties exhibiting an urgent need for additional resources. Funds are distributed within the fiscal year, on a first-come, first-served basis. There are no program area restraints, and counties receiving either Grants to Counties or Improvement Grants funding may still be eligible to apply.
A 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 $49,000,000, 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, 152 counties participate in Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties funding program. Of these counties, 21 counties provide indigent defense through a public defender program, 55 have contract defenders (attorneys in private practice who contract to provide representation to indigent persons) and 76 counties utilize an appointed or a panel attorney program as 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.
4

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. Contracts for indigent defense services should never be granted solely on the basis of a low bid. In addition to cost, attention must be paid to the attorney's level of expertise and experience, available time, private caseload, the size of his or her support staff and other resources. Absent these safeguards, 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 a viable alternative to a full-time public defender system. 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, or in areas of the State where there are an insufficient number of experienced attorneys, the adequacy of the entire program may be called into question.
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. Recent studies in Georgia show that overhead in small law offices

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

and already outdated. The federal government recently increased hourly compensation for

6

appointed lawyers to $90 per hour for both out-of-court and in-court work. Georgia must reexamine its fee structure for appointed attorneys if we are to keep experienced attorneys 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. That gap has grown

as compensation for the state employed prosecutors has risen but that of defenders has not. In

one North Georgia county, locally employed defenders are still receiving the same level of

compensation awarded in 1987, while the salaries of the state employed judges and

prosecutors have risen by more than 160% over the last fifteen years. Only one Georgia

county provides salary parity between the prosecutor's office and the public defender office.



The salary study also 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 the salary gap between prosecutors and defenders, we will continue to suffer high

rates of turnover in defense offices and fail to hire the "best and the brightest."

7



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.

8

Recommendations For Change



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

expensive and important component of the state's judicial system. Criminal justice costs

continue to rise, experiencing a 20.6% increase in 2000. The level of State funding for indigent

defense is far smaller than the State's portion of funding for prosecution.



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

Attorney offices. Disparities in the relative caseloads between prosecution and indigent defense

offices should be reflected only in staffing levels and not in the rates of 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

9

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



152 of Georgia's 159 counties, covering over 97% of the population, applied for and are

receiving state funds for local indigent defense programs.



These 152 counties spent $48,935,814 in 2000, as compared to $40,591,424 in 1999,

$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 nearly ninety six (95.74%) percent increase over seven

years or an average annual increase of more than twelve (12%) percent.



Attorneys in these counties provided representation to nearly 170,,000 defendants with criminal

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

termination of parental rights cases.



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



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

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



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

representation for indigent persons.



In 2000, the average cost per case was $287.89, as compared with $242.34 in 1999, $216.47

in 1998, $204.47 in 1997, $213.40 in 1996.



In 2000, the average cost per resident was $6.16, compared with $6.71 in 1999, $5.69 in

1998, $5.22 in 1997, and $5.13 in 1996. Of the $6.16, only 68 cents came from state taxes,

with the balance being paid from county taxes and interest generated on certain clerks' and

sheriffs' escrow accounts.



In 2000, the state contributed only eleven and one one-hundredths (11.01%) percent of the

dollars needed to support indigent defense, as compared to twelve and five one-hundredths

(12.05%) percent in 1999.



In 2000, the total cost of providing indigent defense went up more than twenty and one-half

(20.56%) percent, while the state portion of indigent defense funds increased by only ten and

twenty-two one-hundredths (10.22%) percent, reflecting a dramatically growing gap between

state and local funding. Comparatively, in 1999, total indigent defense expenses rose by slightly

more than ten (10.06%) percent, while state funding increased by twelve and two-thirds (12

2/3%) percent, the only time in recent years that state funding increased at a faster pace than

10

local indigent defense costs. 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.



In 2000, interest on Clerks' and Sheriffs' trust account funding again set a record, growing by

more than thirty percent (30.94%) to $1.86 million. Clerks' and Sheriffs' has modestly, but

steadily, risen over the last four years, and while last year's record-setting pace will be hard to

repeat, the inclusion of interest generated on cash bonds held in the Probate Courts with a

change in the Georgia Code effective July 1, 2000 has benefitted the program.



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

state funding for prosecution costs is more than eight (8.08) 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

approximately 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 2000

2 Combined state allocations for District Attorneys and the Prosecuting Attorneys Council are $43,586,137; while county expenditures for indigent defense services were approximately $48,935,814, of which $5,390,000 was state funding, with the balance of $43,545,814 coming from county funding and interest generated on certain clerks' and sheriffs' escrow accounts.
11

Georgia Indigent Defense Council FY 02-03 Legislative Package

BUDGET REQUEST

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council originally requested that the Georgia General Assembly increase the Council's state appropriations budget by the amount of $4,770,357. Responding to a request from the Governor's office to reduce the increase due to the decrease in state revenues last year, we are now requesting an increase in the amount of $3,899,654. The breakdown is listed below:

Continuation Grants

Originally we were requesting an increase the Grants to Counties subsidies from the current level of 11.01% of the $48,935,814 expended by the counties last year to 20% of that amount, or a total of $9,787,163.

Since we have reduced the initial budget request, we are now requesting an increase from 11.01% to 18.6% of the $48,935,814 expended by the counties last year, which totals $9,127,589 (a requested increase of $3,737,589).



$1,000,000 in the Supplemental Budget, which would take into account the Legislature's

approval last year of 13.2% of the prior year's anticipated expenditures. The actual

county expenditures increased by 20.6%. $1,000,000 would allow us to fund the counties

at the level approved by the Legislature.



The additional $2,737,589 will be requested in the FY 02-03 Main Budget.

New Grants
The original request to Improvement Grants was for an additional $300,000. We are now requesting an increase to Improvement Grants totaling $162,065.
Improvement Grants are currently funded at $237,946. Last year GIDC requested $537,946 to fund $400,000 in new programs, with the remainder designated to allow counties already receiving funding to apply for 50% of the salary and benefits associated with the grant approval in the preceding year.
Due to revenue shortfalls we are requesting an increase of $162,065, which will bring funding for Improvement Grants to $400,000. This amount will fund new programs under improvement grants, but unfortunately will leave no funds available for continuation grants under this program.

Base Budget
We are requesting no increases to our base budget which funds the Multicounty Public Defender (death penalty) this year.

12

THE GEORGIA INDIGENT DEFENSE COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
LEGAL LOAN FORGIVENESS Several months ago the Governor appointed a Legal Loan Forgiveness Task Force. This Task Force was established to study the issue of a loan forgiveness program for qualified lawyers entering public service as prosecutors, public defenders, or attorneys working for the Georgia Department of Law. The Chairman of the task force is the Honorable Kenneth B. Hodges, District Attorney in the Dougherty Judicial Circuit. Other members of the task force include representatives from the Georgia General Assembly, Prosecuting Attorneys Council, District Attorneys, Attorney General's office, Solicitors General, Professors from the University of Georgia and Georgia State University, the Georgia Finance Committee, and a representative from the Fulton County Conflict Defender, Incorporated. This Task Force has been charged with the duty of providing a report no later than December 15, 2001 setting forth recommendations on how to accomplish some form of loan forgiveness. The Task Force has begun meeting and will continue meeting frequently over the next few months. Currently, with the salaries that law firms are paying first year associates to enter into private practice, it is becoming more difficult to recruit and retain qualified attorneys to practice in the public sector. The hope is that this Task Force will propose viable solutions to the Georgia Legislature outlining ways to establish a program to repay loans for qualified attorneys that choose to enter into the public sector of government. The Georgia Indigent Defense Council fully supports this initiative, which was part of our Fiscal Year 01-02 Legislative Agenda and continues to be part of our Fiscal Year 02-03 Legislative Agenda. We are very excited about the possibility of loan forgiveness for attorneys who represent indigent persons in this state and will work to assist this Task Force in any way possible to achieve this goal. We would also urge the Georgia General Assembly to support legislation that comes before them that would allow Loan Forgiveness for District Attorneys and Public Defenders.
13

JUVENILE DISCOVERY ACT (HB 642)
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council supports HB642, also known as the Juvenile Discovery Act.
Currently there is no uniformity in the Juvenile Courts across the State of Georgia. Many times, indigent children charged in the juvenile courts do not have legal representation even if they do have counsel many times there is no district attorney prosecuting the case. Often the case is processed by a Juvenile Detention Officer, Probation Officer, or other court personnel. This makes it very difficult for Public Defenders and attorneys appointed to defend these children to acquire vital documents necessary to defend the case. Often times, witness lists, arrest records, subpoenas, etc. are not available to the defense attorney. They must appear in court not knowing the facts of the case. Legislation allowing for the defense attorney to request and receive these documents in a timely manner will allow for children charged in the juvenile courts to receive a proper defense and reduce delays in involved in processing these cases.
This Bill would amend Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 15 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to juvenile proceedings, so as to provide for the regulation of discovery and inspection in juvenile cases; to provide for conditions, limitations, and procedures with respect thereto; to provide for definitions; to provide for applicability; to provide for disclosure of evidence by the court; to provide for exceptions; to provide for continuing duties to disclose; to provide for production of statements of witnesses; to provide for court orders with respect to failure to comply; to provide for lists of witnesses; to provide for other matters relative to the foregoing; to provide for an effective date and applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year and is currently in a Study Review Committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reviewing committee is chaired by Senator Doug Haines. There are ongoing discussions between the Juvenile Court Judges, District Attorneys, Department of Juvenile Justice and the Public Defenders that may result in modifications to the proposed legislation.
Everyone is committed to perfecting the legislation so it may be voted on by the Georgia General Assembly for final passage. Please support HB642 during the upcoming legislative session.
14

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.
15

Analysis of Indigent Defense Cases Calendar Year 2000
Indigent Caseload Composition - CY2000/FY2002

27.0%

2.7% 0.4%
9.1%

22.1%

38.6%

Felony Misdemeanor Probation Revocation Appeals Other Juvenile (All Types)

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

65,612 37,546 15,515
755 4,619 45,935
169,982

16

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council

Georgia Indigent Defense Council
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council was established as a separate agency within the judicial branch of State government to carry out the mandates of the Indigent Defense Act, including the right to counsel and equal protection under the laws throughout Georgia.
Effective indigent defense requires the cooperative efforts of all branches of government. Indigent defense and the resources we devote to this obligation must meet the challenge of evolving laws. Our constitution and laws require effective assistance of counsel and equal access to the courts.
Vision Statement Our democracy depends on a legal system which commands the confidence of every citizen. Indigent defense is a constitutionally mandated government function, and as such must be a partner with the courts and prosecution in order for our system to work effectively. The Georgia Indigent Defense Council seeks to ensure that justice and fairness is promoted within the criminal justice system, regardless of a person's financial circumstances, by striving for competent, highly trained and effective counsel for defendants in criminal cases or parties to juvenile actions throughout all levels of their case.
Mission Statement The mission of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council is to promote justice and fairness to all indigent persons charged with crimes or who are parties in a juvenile action, by providing fiscal and professional support that ensures effective indigent defense systems and high quality legal services in all courts, as mandated by the laws and constitutions of the United States and Georgia.
19

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
20

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 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.
21

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

$5,390,000 $1,032,000

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

$2,255,522

Improvement Grants

$237,935

Clerks' and Sheriffs' Trust Accounts

$1,860,250

Children and Youth Coordinating Council Contract

$15,000

Byrne Grant (Augusta Circuit Video-Conferencing)4

$35,524

American Bar Association Capital Defense Fund5

$600

Total Revenue 6

$10,826,831

4 The 2001 Edward Byrne Memorial Drug Control & System Improvement Grant.
5 The American Bar Association awarded the Georgia Indigent Defense Council funds for the 2001 Annual Capital Defense Training Seminar.
6 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.
22

Expenditures Grants to Counties Funding Subsidies Clerks' and Sheriffs' Funding Subsidies Improvement Grants7 Multicounty Public Defender Operations Georgia Indigent Defense Council Operations8 Senate Bill 440 ("Seven Deadly Sins") Tracking Project Byrne Grant (Augusta Circuit Video-Conferencing) Death Penalty Seminar Total Expenditures

$5,390,000 $1,860,250
$408,000 $1,032,000 $2,095,881
$15,000 $35,524
$600 $10,837,255

7 Improvement Grants funding was allocated from $237,935 in state appropriated funds and $170,065 in Georgia Bar Foundation (I.O.L.T.A.) funds. Georgia Bar Foundation revenues exceeded budgeted expectations by $159,641,requiring that $10,424 be allocated from prior years' Georgia Bar Foundation reserves.
8 Georgia Indigent Defense Council operations exclusive of Multicounty Public Defender operations.
23

Division Activities and Updates

Appellate Division
The Division's Mission
The Appellate Division serves five broad purposes:
1. It is a source of advice, consultation, and assistance for appointed criminal defense lawyers "in the field" who have encountered and identified potential issues which, in the event the proceedings come out unfavorably, they want to foster, preserve, perfect, and press on appeal. This service represents "early intervention" in cases which are still being shaped. Much of it arrives "over the wire," either through the electronic mail list-server which the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (G.A.C.D.L.) maintains and which the Division monitors, or through inquiries or overtures made directly to the G.I.D.C. A significant portion of the latter also arrives by way of the G.I.D.C. "Bring Your File" program where appointed counsel come to the office and consult jointly with several of the professional staff in order to "brainstorm" problems, tactics, and strategies. Although this sort of consultation is particularly valuable to younger lawyers, sole practitioners, and those with relatively little criminal defense or appellate experience and of course their clients more seasoned lawyers also take advantage of it.
2. As an extension of the first purpose, the Division also provides assistance during the appellate stage itself, on records already shaped. This sort of assistance ranges from rudimentary procedural advice, through consultation, legal research, and brief-editing up to co-authoring briefs and joining as appellate co-counsel. Again, though the primary beneficiaries are younger lawyers with relatively little appellate experience and of course their clients more experienced lawyers also invoke this service.
3. In selected cases which raise issues which are novel, interesting, or important to indigent defense, or those where it seems appropriate to present an "institutional viewpoint somewhat separate from the individual defendant's, the Division submits amicus curiae briefs. It often does this jointly with other interested organizations (such as G.A.C.D.L.) and sometimes at the request of the appellate courts. Separate amicus briefs are sometimes the product of the advice and consultation described above, filed in support (or augmentation) of defense counsel's own brief. The Supreme Court's discretionary dockets (granted certiorari and habeas appeals) are also the source of some of these cases since, once the Court accepts such a case for review, it frames and publishes the questions presented. (On habeas appeals taken by the State, which do not come out of a discretionary docket with the issues framed and published in advance, the Clerk of the Supreme Court alerts the Division when the appellee is pro se and when professional advocacy, either as counsel or as amicus, might be useful to the Court.)
4. The Division assists and joins other G.I.D.C. divisions in appellate litigation which their work generates or in which they have an interest. In unusual circumstances, the Division also appears as
27

volunteer counsel of record in appellate cases which present substantial issues but in which there is no right to appellate counsel.
5. Finally, in conjunction with the G.I.D.C. Professional Education Division, the Division participates in periodic training throughout the state for lawyers interested in appellate or other post-conviction practice. This results in cost-savings to the counties since these continuing legal education seminars increase the number of qualified, skilled appellate practitioners at virtually no local expense.
Litigation During 2001
First, to wrap up and update "old business" and loose ends from the 2000 annual report:
1. The State Supreme Court denied the State's application for certiorari in Carswell v. State, 244 Ga.App. 516, 534 SE2d 568 (2000), a case in which the Division filed an amicus brief on the prevailing pointthe court's failure to appoint counsel by the time of arraignment, with the consequence of an outright reversal of the conviction without a "harm" inquiry.
2. Turn-about being fair play, the State Supreme Court and then the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of certiorari (in which the Division joined with local, appointed counsel) to review the adverse part of the judgment in Sirmans v. State, 244 Ga.App. 252, 534 SE2d 862 (2000). In that case, the courts confounded the right to observe putative evidence "in plain view" on private property with the right to seize it.
3. The Division joined local counsel in seeking certiorari in both the State and the United States Supreme Court to review the judgment of the court of Appeals in Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 529 SE2d 197 (2000), but both petitions failed. Local counsel has agreed to proceed on into federal habeas corpus and the Division is assisting in that regard. In Mauk, the Court of Appeals denied the appellant the benefit of Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 510 SE2d 18 (1998), and affirmed a conviction for consensual sodomy on the basis of facts neither litigated nor found by a jury, raising serious constitutional questions under the Sixth and 14th Amendments which allocate exclusively to the jury the duty to apply the law to the facts.
4. The Appellate Division also joined local, appointed counsel in an unsuccessful petition for certiorari in the State Supreme Court to review an unreported opinion of the Court of Appeals dismissing a reinstated appeal on certain technical grounds and requiring that it again be reinstated (Martin v. State, No. A00A2458).
5. The Shannon Moss casean unusual one in which the Division, jointly with others, filed an amicus brief in the trial court-- is still pending, though local counsel has indicated that the prosecution is backing off an indictment for murdering her stillborn (or newborn) child by ingesting cocaine during
28

pregnancy with an offer too good for the defendant to refuse and that the case is going to "go away."
6. Hogan v. Nagel was pending in the State Supreme court at the time of the last report. This was a case in which the Division and M.H.A.D. joined pro bono counsel from the Georgia Legal Services in an effort to secure habeas relief for a person committed to DHR 20 years ago after being acquitted for a double homicide by reason of insanity, on the basis that he had overcome his disability, no longer met the criteria for civil commitment, and could not constitutionally continue to be involuntarily detained to no apparent purpose. The State took the position that his discharge was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court and could not, under the circumstances, be considered by any other court on a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, a closely divided Court affirmed the habeas court's jurisdiction and remanded for a hearing on the merits, Hogan v. Nagel, 273 Ga. 577, 543 SE2d 705 (2001). That hearing has occurred and the habeas court has received proposed orders and has the case under advisement. In the meanwhile, original counsel moved to Vermont and withdrawn, and M.H.A.D. and the Appellate Division have taken over as counsel. Whichever side loses will again appeal.
7. Though the Division filed an amicus brief in support of the relief a pro se petitioner had secured in a habeas court, the Supreme Court reversed in Williams v. Lawrence, 273 Ga. 295, 540 SE2d 599 (2001). Drawing a distinction between administrative and judicial proceedings, the Court permitted the Parole Board to credit hearsay and to revoke on that basis without running afoul of the Confrontation Clause.
8. In an unreported opinion, the State Supreme Court remanded Lockett v. Williams, a habeas case which the Division took over for purposes of appeal, in order that a critical but previously overlooked autopsy report could be added to the record. That occurred but in September the habeas court again denied relief. Another application to appeal is pending. This case is a challenge to a guilty plea to the voluntary manslaughter of her newborn by a young, mentally challenged woman who denied doing anything to the child, in the face of an autopsy report which could not ascertain "any intentional act" as the cause of death, and on a plea colloquy which failed to explore the factual basis of the offense.
Turning to "new business" concluded during 2001:
1. During the year, the State Supreme court denied certiorari in Strange v. State, 244 Ga. 635, 535 SE2d 315 (2000). This was a case where the Division had joined inexperienced local counsel on appeal but eventually had to take over the case. After a mistrial, a second jury had acquitted the defendant of murdering a member of a prominent local family, shot as the accused defended himself from an unprovoked attack by his friends. However, it convicted him of aggravated assault for shooting at his assailants as he fled, and the judge imposed a 50-serve-40 term. Although there were arguable legal issues in the case, the real problem all along was the length of the sentence, which was remarkably excessive under the circumstances of the case. At the conclusion of the
29

appellate proceedings, the Division law clerk, Miss Sarah Gerwig, prepared a sentence review application which resulted in the sentence's reduction to 30-serve-ten, which is quite possibly a Sentence Review Panel record for relief.
2. After the State Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Appellate Division filed an amicus brief in White v. State, 273 Ga. 787, 546 SE2d 514 (2001). The Court overruled a long line of ill-considered cases to hold that the proscription against hearsay and the right to confrontation precluded the prosecution from putting into evidence the out-of-court line-up identification of an accused by an available eyewitness who did not himself take the stand where he could be subjected to cross-examination.
3. In another case where the Division filed an amicus brief (this one prepared by one of its summer law clerks) in a case accepted on certiorari, the State Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in Watts v. State, 274 Ga. 373, 552 SE2d 823 (2001). It held that an accused who challenged a search sanctioned by a warrant which had allegedly been secured through material omissions of facts bore no initial burden of either pleading or proof until the prosecution had discharged its obligation to show the basis on which the warrant had issued.
4. In Massaline v. Williams, ___ Ga.___, 554 SE2d 720 (2001), the Division originally filed an amicus brief (prepared by the second summer law clerk) in support of a habeas appeal in which the State Supreme Court was considering whether to adopt a "prison mailbox rule" for fixing the filing date of appellate pleadings submitted by those who were confined. On the petitioner's request and the Division's agreement, this was converted to a "party" brief and the Division appeared as counsel of record. A closely divided Court agreed with the GIDC position and adopted such a rule, which has the effect of avoiding some prisoners' late filings (and their the dire consequences) in certain circumstances.
As for "new business" during 2001 which has not been concluded:
1. The Division joined local, appointed counsel as co-counsel in Lee v. State, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ SE2d ___. This is a rather long-shot appeal attempting to place an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under the often-slighted rule of Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), requiring no "prejudice" inquiry in certain circumstances, rather than under the more common rule of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
2. The Division joined local, pro bono counsel in O'Connor v. State, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ SE2d ___. This is a very interesting appeal from a conviction for voluntary manslaughter in which the trial court's instructions confounded the distinction between the law of "mutual combat" and the law of justification. They told the jury that if it found that the homicide occurred during a fight (which amounted to "mutual combat"), the defendant could not successfully also claim self-defense. The curious result was a young woman's conviction for stabbing the person who, without provocation, attacked her and pinned her to the ground while his two companions repeatedly kicked her (as a
30

consequence of which they were themselves convicted of aggravated assault).
3. In an amicus brief which Ms. Gerwig authored, the Division has appeared in Luke v. Battle, ___ Ga. ___, a habeas appeal presenting the issue whether one whose conviction had become final was entitled to the benefit of the Court's holding in Brewer v. State, 271 Ga. 605 (1999). Brewer had overruled a line of prior cases and required the State to prove actual force (rather than to simply rely upon the victim's age) in a prosecution for aggravated sodomy against a minor. The issue is whether Brewer represented a new rule of criminal procedure (which would not be retroactive) or a new rule of substantive criminal law (which should be).
4. In an appeal by the State in Meadows v. Settles, ___ Ga. ___, the Division filed an amicus brief jointly with the Center for Prisoners' Legal Assistance in defense of habeas relief awarded a pro se petitioner, a brief which the appellee subsequently adopted as his own. The issue in the case is whether it accorded with 14th Amendment due process for a court to revoke probation on a waiver of counsel and a "no contest" consent predicated on the misrepresentation that the remaining balance was approximately two years while it was in fact several times longer.
5. In Moore v. State, ___ Ga. ___, the Appellate Division filed an amicus brief in support of a granted certiorari on the question whether an invalid waiver of counsel and invocation of the right to self-representation should be automatically reversed as "structural error" or was subject to a harmless error inquiry. See Moore v. State, 250 Ga.App. 75, 550 SE2d 667 (2001).
6. The Division filed an amicus brief on a very limited issue in Springs v. Seese, ___Ga. ___, a State appeal from habeas relief. In that case, even though the appellee was pro se, confined, and completely unable to attend, the State requested that the case be set on the oral argument calendar. He lodged a timely protest to any oral argument which he could not attend and asked that the appeal be submitted on the briefs. Calling the Court's attention to the way the Supreme Court's had resolved this issue many years ago in the federal system, the amicus brief supported his position on this narrow point.
7. Jointly with G.A.C.D.L., the Division filed an amicus brief in support of an application for certiorari to review the judgment in Cotten v. State, 251 Ga.App. 628, 555 SE2d 15 (2001), a case where the Court of Appeals plainly bungled the law of double jeopardy.
8. Similarly, the Division filed an amicus brief in support of a pending application for certiorari to review a the judgment in State v. Hammons, 252 Ga.App. 226, ___ SE2d ___ (2001), reversing relief against a 15-year sentence for felony vehicular homicide imposed upon a misdemeanor vehicular homicide charge. The judgment not only did considerable violence to substantive criminal law, but to certain post-conviction remedies as well.
31

Governmental Relations Division
The Governmental Relations Division serves seven broad purposes: 1) it administers State indigent defense funding, including the preparation of the annual Grants to Counties and Improvement Grants funding applications, and the receipt and analysis of data contained in all applications for funding from counties; 2) it serves as the liaison with the members of the Indigent Defense Council and members of the Georgia General Assembly, including petitioning the Legislature for the appropriation of additional funds, advocacy on certain legislation affecting counties adult and juvenile indigent defense programs and indigent defendants throughout the state (all legislation in the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's legislative package is approved by the Council), and consultation on proposed changes to the criminal code affecting indigent defense; 3) it manages the Improvement Grants program by assisting counties applying, processing applications, coordinating the two-tier selection process, and maintaining the financial and status reports once grants are awarded; 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, and 7) it coordinates indigent defense related events, symposia and meetings for the Council.
Last year and in the upcoming year, the Division is focusing on procuring additional funds for the 152 counties participating in the Grants to Counties program, as well as funds for the relatively new Improvement Grants program. This year, we were able to bring 16 new counties into the program, which increased the number from 136 last year to a record 152 counties. The Governmental Relations Division will continue to provide the same services as year past which includes processing Grants to Counties, Improvement Grants & Clerks & Sheriff's funding, and handling grievances lodged by indigent defendants, but is placing greater emphasis as stated above on securing new funding for the provision of local indigent defense services. The Improvement Grants, which funded $408,000 in new and continuation grants to 42 counties last year, has turned out to be a great success. Having no-match grant money to improve services at the local level has been a way for counties to see and reap the benefits of additional resources for their indigent defense programs before they have to put the money forth to fund it. The Improvement Grants offer funding for general as well as specialized areas of criminal law including Juvenile & Mental Health Specialist categories. Also, for the second year in a row the Georgia Indigent Defense Council was able to procure Phase II of the Byrne Grant for the Augusta Judicial Circuit. This grant will complete their Indigent Defense Videoconferencing Project.
32

Fiscal Year 2002 Grants to Counties Funding Applications
The Council voted in August 2001 by electronic proxy to approve all 152 counties that applied for FY2002 Grants to Counties funding. Due to time constraints, the Council was unable to vote at their regular meeting on August 10th.
The allocations through Grants to Counties for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 are:

State Appropriation Clerks & Sheriffs Total allocated to counties:

$5,390,000.00 $1,860,250.21 $7,250,250.21

The Indigent Defense Council is pleased to welcome Appling, Atkinson, Bulloch, Chattahoochee, Clinch, Effingham, Gordon, Hancock, Jasper, Jenkins, Lanier, Screven, Stewart, Talbot, Taylor, Turner, & Walton county either into the program for the first time or back into the Grants to Counties funding program. The seven counties who do not participate are: Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Jackson, Jones, Putnam, & Walker counties.

Byrne Grant

This year the Georgia Indigent Defense Council received a 2002 Edward Byrne Memorial Drug Control & System Improvement Grant. This grant was for $35,524 and will complete Phase II of the Augusta Judicial Circuit Videoconferencing Link (we received $47,468 last year to begin the project). Phase I established links between the Indigent Defense Office in Augusta, the Richmond County Jail, the Burke County Jail & the Columbia County Jail. Phase II will complete the links by connecting the Joint Law Enforcement Center, and the Georgia Indigent Defense Council to the link. We are also using grant monies to fund the ISDN phone lines through the end of the fiscal year for the locations already in place.

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council and the Augusta Judicial Circuit initially 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. Videoconferencing maximizes the time of indigent defense personnel, while reducing the significant security risks associated with entry and exit from these jails.

33

Indigent Defense Symposium November 14, 2001 was the date of the 2nd Annual Statewide Symposium on Indigent Defense in Georgia. Building on last year's historic and collaborative symposium on indigent defense, stakeholders continue to explore and develop a statewide vision of indigent defense in our State. The symposium, held at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta brought together over 150 leaders in indigent defense --- judges, state legislators, county commissioners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court administrators, representatives of the State Bar of Georgia, law enforcement officials, educators, students, community leaders, and the media. All of these groups are working together to define a statewide vision for indigent defense in our state. This symposium on indigent defense in our State was sponsored by the Georgia Indigent Defense Council in Conjunction with the County of Superior Court Judges, the Prosecuting Attorneys Council, the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, and a Symposium Planning Committee representing the various groups that make up the indigent defense community: judges, county commissioners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court administrators, and indigent defense policy makers. The purpose of this event was to discuss both collaboration and the future of indigent defense in Georgia. By bringing together all of the stakeholders in the criminal justice system, the symposium planning committee encouraged frank discussion of the problems and the development of common solutions. Members of the Chief Justice's Commission on Indigent Defense were present at the symposium to discuss some of the workings of their commission, which has been meeting since last December. This Commission was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the request of the Governor to review and make recommendations to the Georgia General Assembly on improvements to Georgia's Indigent Defense System. The problems in indigent defense cannot be solved by one group. This symposium continued a dialog on this important issue.
34

Supreme Court's Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense
In December of 2000, the former Chief Justice Robert Benham and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia appointed a 25-member Blue Ribbon Commission to review indigent defense in the State of Georgia. This Commission has meeting over the last year and should have a report to the Supreme Court , and the Governor sometime during the summer of 2002. Members of the Commission are as follows:
A. Harris Adams, State Court of Cobb County Stanley F. Birch, Jr., 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Robert Brown, Secretary, Senate Judiciary Committee 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 Georgia Allen Hammontree, Member, House Judiciary Committee Paul Holmes, Representative, Georgia Chamber of Commerce Phyllis Holmen, Georgia Legal Services Howard O. Hunter, Dean, Emory University School of Law R. William Ide, III Curtis Jenkins, Chairperson, House Special Judiciary Committee Robert Keller, District Attorney, Clayton Judicial Circuit Paul Kurtz, Professor, University of Georgia School of Law, Commission Reporter George Lawson, Lawson & Thornton, P.C. Charlie Lester, Past President, State Bar of Georgia Charles Morgan, BellSouth Corporation, 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, Scronton Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C. Lawton Stephens, Superior Court Judge, Western Judicial Circuit A. Blenn Taylor, Superior Court Judge, Brunswick Judicial Circuit
35

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, 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 2001 we have had a PhD social work student intern from the University of Georgia as well as law student interns from Georgia State and Suffolk.
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 2001 the division conducted juvenile justice seminars around the state which covered delinquency, deprivation and guardians ad litem. Additionally, the division, in conjunction with the Supreme Court Child Placement Project, hosted a two day retreat in Savannah which gathered together several attorneys who represent parents in deprivation cases, along with facilitators from the ABA's Center on Children and the Law, to develop aspirational guidelines for attorneys who practice in that area of law. The resulting booklet, which will be distributed to attorneys across the state, will be published shortly.
In addition to hosting seminars, both Susan Teaster and Trish McCann were speakers at such programs as the Department of Juvenile Justice Law Conference, a United Nations Symposium on the International Rights of the Child: "Crime and Punishment", and the Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children's Annual Conference.
Finally, the division is very proud to have hosted the Southern Regional Defender training, a two day gathering of juvenile court attorneys from throughout the south who participated in intensive training sessions in order to continue the learning process as to how to better serve their clients in the juvenile court system.
36

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. Dispositional data is published twice a year, in March and September.
We continue to improve our data collection process and we are encouraged by a recent meeting with the Department of Juvenile Justice wherein strategies to improve the accuracy of the data were discussed. The report is now distributed to a mailing list of over 340 and we continue to receive requests for data and information from students, reporters and other interested parties, both inside and outside the state.
Juvenile Discovery
In 1999, the division was contacted by several attorneys who expressed concern that there was no statutory right to discovery in juvenile delinquency cases. In 2000, the division drafted a proposed discovery bill. There were several meetings between representatives from the legislature, the juvenile court judges, the prosecutors and defense attorneys to identify issues and concerns. A bill was drawn which passed the Georgia House of Representatives, but was stalled in the Senate. The division is committed to helping pass this piece of legislation in order to ensure that the constitutional rights of juveniles are protected in delinquency proceedings and will be working again this year towards passage of the bill.
Special Education
Last year, the division recognized the need to address the issue of the lack of special education advocates 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. GIDC awarded the Juvenile Court of Fulton County a $50,000.00 Improvement Grant to fund a Special Education Advocacy Program. Trish McCann of the division serves on the Board of the Program. This summer, the Program hired an Advocate Coordinator, who accepts referrals from the juvenile court judges for special education advocate, attorneys who will represent the child and the parents in attempting to compel the school district to provide the necessary services the child needs to make meaningful progress in his or her education. The program has already been the subject of an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
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.
37

The division also sponsored a two day seminar for attorneys who advocate for special education attorney and brought in nationally recognized attorneys to assist in the training.
Other The division provides consultation to attorneys in juvenile court cases. We receive and assist in several calls each week. Members of the division are active in many state and national organizations which deal in children's issues. The division was a cosponsor of an awards banquet, held at G.I.D.C., which honored individual achievements in juvenile law, and looks forward to cosponsoring next year's banquet. The division has updated its web site and has added both the delinquency and deprivation outlines, sample motions, case law updates, practice tips and links to other juvenile resources. The division continues to monitor trends in children's law and to make every effort to ensure that attorneys who practice in juvenile court are aware of the current laws and any other resources which may be available to them.
38

Mental Health Advocacy Division
The Mental Health Advocacy Division (M.H.A.D.) provides services state-wide as a way of assisting attorneys, the hospitals and the 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. 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 M.H.A.D. 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.
M.H.A.D. is currently staffed by three attorneys, a Division Assistant, and a part time social worker. The Division also utilizes work/study students, undergraduate and law students. Marianne McMillan worked as a paralegal for M.H.A.D. prior to attending law school. She graduated from Emory Law School in 1997 and has worked for M.H.A.D. 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. Curtis Todd, the social worker, was a student intern with the Multi-County Public Defender's Office. All five 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.
Curtis' responsibilities include working with attorneys around the state on individual cases where mental health issues or placement issues arise. He also works 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.
M.H.A.D. has continued to work with DeKalb County on the formation of Georgia's first Mental Health Court. The Court starting accepting cases in April, 2001. The Court meets once a week for new cases, and has a review calendar once a month. M.H.A.D. worked with the Court and the DeKalb County Mental Health Task Force to apply for a federal grant. We were awarded the grant, which will make a huge difference in the Court's ability to serve clients in an appropriate manner.
39

Cases come to M.H.A.D. 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. M.H.A.D. assists in locating independent experts, interpreting evaluations, drafting motions (M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D. 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, M.H.A.D.'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 who has an open cases with an person found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. We want to maintain more contact with the courts on an ongoing basis. M.H.A.D. has continued to update information on the Division and its services to the G.I.D.C. website, (www.gidc.com).
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 M.H.A.D. 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, M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D. will take no action contrary to that patient's wishes.
The Augusta Judicial Circuit, (Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties) received a continuation grant from G.I.D.C. funds for their program. They have designated a local attorney who has been specially trained, in part by M.H.A.D., in mental health cases and the IDA staff has also been trained and works with this attorney on cases involving mentally ill defendants. This program has been very successful thus far. The program has been very well received locally. 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. M.H.A.D. is optimistic that more funding will be secured to
40

specially designate and train more attorneys to handle these cases in a manner most beneficial to the clients.

One of M.H.A.D.'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. M.H.A.D. 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, M.H.A.D. has been asked to speak to groups on more advanced or focused topics. M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D. 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. M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D.'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.

M.H.A.D. Caseload Information

Current Open Cases:

218

Complex Cases Opened 1/1/01-12/1/01

27

Quick Resolution Cases 1/1/01-12/1/01

128

Total Opened Cases Since 1992 Total Quick Resolution Cases

572 765 (QR inception date 1996)

Cases Closed 1/1/01-12/1/01

19

41

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. M.H.A.D. 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 M.H.A.D. doesn't want to ignore other aspects of patient rights. M.H.A.D.'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.
42

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; (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.
43

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 attorney appointed to represent a person in a death penalty case must, in addition to all of the competence required for the defense of major felony cases, must also have particularized expertise in the field of forensic mental health. In an effort to address this critical need, the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender has developed an ongoing relationship with the School of Social Work at Georgia State University. Dr. Elizabeth Beck, a faculty member in Georgia State University's School of Social Work and Pamela Leonard, Senior Investigator and Mitigation Specialist with M.P.D. coordinate an intern program with graduate students from that school who complete a year long practicum at M.P.D. as part of their degree requirements. During that year, the Master of Social Work students work for M.P.D. as mitigation interns.
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
44

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
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 assistance in preparing pre-trial motions to providing trial representation assistance. 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 - 2001
During the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 the Multi-County Public Defender Office opened new files in 29 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 84 cases. The assistance provided in these cases involved 38 different counties.
11 Currently, the staff of the Multi-County Public Defender Office consists of five (5) attorneys, three full-time mitigation specialist/investigators, one full time mental health specialist (A Master of Social Work), one full-time paralegal, one part-time research associate(a doctoral candidate in the field of sociology at Emory University), one clerical assistant. The work of these individuals is regularly supplemented through 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 M.P.D. 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.
45

As of December 31, 2001 there are, as noted previously, 84 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 individuals (128 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 128 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.
In the year 2001, the Multi-County Public Defender Office assisted in the resolution of 19 cases in which the death penalty was not handed down. During the year 2001, a total of 22 death penalty cases were resolved, 19 sentences of less than death and 3 death sentences. Of these 22 death penalty cases, 6 cases were tried before juries and one case was tried before a judge after the defendant waived his right to a jury trial. Of those cases that were tried before juries 3 defendants were sentenced to death and 3 received a sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In the one case which was tried before a judge without a jury, the defendant received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Of the cases which were resolved by negotiated plea agreements, 3 individuals received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole and 12 received sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Multi-County Public Defender Office13 is presently acting as lead counsel in the following trial cases:
State of Georgia v. Jeff Sharp, Superior Court of Fulton County State of Georgia v. Hubert Ray Williams, Superior Court of Pike County State of Georgia v. Gerald Patrick Lewis, Superior Court of Douglas County State of Georgia v. Michael Cohen, Superior Court of Glynn County (MR Remand) State of Georgia v. David Franks, Superior Court of Hall County (Motion for New Trial)
The Multi-County Public Defender Office is presently acting as lead appellate counsel in the following cases:
State of Georgia v. Andrew Brannan, Superior Court of Glynn County
13Currently, the staff of the Multi-County Public Defender Office consists of five (5) attorneys [Michael Mears, Charlotta Norby, Matthew Rubenstein, Holly Geerdes, Betsy Clink]; one full-time Senior Mitigation Specialist [Pamela Leonard]; two full-time mitigation specialist/investigators [Jay Varner, Alysa Wall]; one full-time social worker [Felicia Sullivan]; one part-time social worker [John Ellis]; one full-time office administrator [Tracy Anderson]; one part-time research associate (a doctoral candidate in the field of sociology at Emory University) [Sherod Thaxton]; one part-time clerical assistant [David Pehlke a doctoral candidate in the field of literature at Emory University]. The work of these individuals is regularly supplemented through 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.
46

State of Georgia v. Roger Dale Hayes, Superior Court of Rabun County State of Georgia v. Cedric Lamar, Superior Court of Douglas County State of Georgia v. Virgil Presnell, Superior Court of Cobb County
The Multi-County Public Defender Office is presently providing active consultation services in the following cases:
State of Georgia v. Michael Zellmer, Superior Court of Cobb County State of Georgia v. Jamil Al Amin, Superior Court of Fulton County State of Georgia v. Wesley Harris, Superior Court of Gwinnett County State of Georgia v. Bautista Rameriz, Superior Court of DeKalb County State of Georgia v. Brandon Rhode, Superior Court of Upson County (Appeal) State of Georgia v. Timothy Dawson, Superior Court of Fulton County State of Georgia v. Thomas Gaillard, Superior Court of Bibb County State of Georgia v. Michael Buttrum, Superior Court of Cobb County State of Georgia v. Randy Gene Smallwood, Superior Court of Muscogee County
The Multi-County Public Defender Office appeared before the Georgia Supreme Court in four different cases since January 1, 2001. M.P.D. attorneys filed Writs of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in three cases.
For the period of time from October 1992 through December 1, 2000, the staff of the MultiCounty Public Defender Office has assisted in resolving 215 death penalty cases through negotiated plea agreements.
The 550 cases in which the Multi-County Public Defender Office has been involved since October 1992 have included 127 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,14 paralegals and attorneys, have been provided at no charge to the counties in which those cases were filed. As part of the Multi-County Public Defender Office's tracking and monitoring function, the Office has developed a data base of over 400 post-Furman death penalty cases in Georgia. These cases include all cases in which the death penalty has been given since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1973. Unfortunately, information is only available, at the present time, on cases in which the death penalty was given in those cases between 1973 and 1992.
14 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.
47

M.P.D. has collected and organized data on all cases since 1992 (whether the death sentence was handed down or not) in which a notice of intent to seek the death penalty was issued. The data base includes information about capital defendants and the offense for which he or she is charged as well as the outcome of the case. The Unified Appeal requires that trial judges file reports at the conclusion of every death penalty trial. These reports, which were meant to serve as the basis of proportionality review by the Georgia Supreme Court, are an excellent source of information about the defendant, the offense and the trial. M.P.D. currently has 250 trial judge reports and is transferring the information contained in them to the M.P.D. database. In addition, M.P.D. uses the database to monitor all pending death penalty cases as they progress through the system. In this vein, M.P.D. provides motions and consultation upon request from defense attorneys.
In addition to the consultation cases and direct representation cases, Multi-County Public Defender staff attorneys organized and presented three death penalty defense seminars in 2001 for trial attorneys. The Office of the Multi-County Public Defender received a grant from the American Bar Association which provided funding to retain the services of an expert to assist attorneys in preparing and presenting opening statements and closing arguments in death penalty cases. This expert participated in M.P.D.'s annual seminar at Jekyll Island during the January, 2001. 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.
More than 210 attorneys attended M.P.D. seminars during the year 2001. The Office of the Multi-County Public Defender will conduct a state-wide death penalty seminar at Jekyll Island during the first week of February 2002 and it is anticipated that there will be over one hundred defense attorneys in attendance at this seminar.
The Director has been invited to participate as a presenter in the sixth annual "Loosening the Death Belt" seminar presented by the Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in cooperation with the Cumberland School of Law and the ABA Death Penalty Representation Project. The seminar will take place on February 8 & 9th at the Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama.
The Director of the Multi-County Public Defender Office has authored a second annual survey article analyzing the current status of death penalty case law in Georgia for the 2001 Winter Edition of the Mercer Law Review. This annual survey of death penalty cases has been well received and hopefully will continue to be a valuable tool for the capital defense attorney as well as for judges who are called upon to preside in death penalty cases.
The Multi-County Public Defender Office continues to publish its quarterly newsletter entitled Capital Ideas devoted to capital case developments in Georgia. This newsletter has become an invaluable asset to the capital defense trial attorney. The newsletter is currently in its third year of
48

publication and recently published Volume IV, Issue 3 containing such articles as a case review of death penalty decisions and an article discussing the preparation of mitigation witnesses. Other recent articles have included such topics as "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Evidence as Mitigation in Death Penalty Cases," and "Principles of Developing and Presenting Mental Health Evidence in Criminal Cases." 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.
As noted in the previous annual report, The Multi-County Public Defender wrote and edited a Capital Defender's Basic Guidebook in 1998. This guidebook has been updated and is now available to any attorney in the State of Georgia who has been appointed to defend a death penalty case. 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.
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," authored by the M.P.D. Director 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.
Under the sponsorship of the Multi-County Public Defender Office, a Soros Foundation Grant has been awarded to Sherod Thaxton, M.P.D.'s death penalty case tracking specialist and pursuant to the terms of the grant, he will conduct a state-wide study on the influence of extra-legal factors on the capital charging and sentencing process, using the study as an exportable model for capital defenders in Georgia and nation-wide. The first aspect of benefit of the study (which is an outgrowth of the extensive tracking data which the Multi-County Public Defender has developed since 1992) will provide data for capital defenders in Georgia to challenge the use of the death penalty in specific cases. In 1988 and 1989, the United States Supreme Court in the case of McCleksey v. Kemp held that although the statistical information about the decision to seek the death penalty in Georgia clearly showed that the death penalty is used in a racially discriminatory manner, there was no individual statistics to show actual cases-by-case racial discrimination. The Soros Grant awarded to Mr. Thaxton and to the Multi-County Public Defender Office (as the sponsoring agency) will serve as a tool to assist defense attorneys in mounting proportionality attacks against specific death penalty case decisions. The awarding of this grant to Sherod Thaxton is a very significant event and recognizes the continuing work of M.P.D. in fulfilling its mandate of assisting attorneys who are representing death penalty cases in Georgia.
49

The Multi-County Public Defender Office has also initiated a joint interagency exploratory study (with accompanying grant proposals) with the Georgia Fatherhood Program (a division of Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education) and Morehouse Research Institute (a division of Morehouse College). The title of the program is Breaking the Cycle of Incarceration: Fatherhood Program Services for Children of Inmates Serving Life Sentences Without the Possibility of Parole or Awaiting Execution in Georgia. The purpose of the program is to find ways to address the need to provide incentives for our clients to accept long term incarceration in lieu of going to trial and risking a sentence of death. For a number of years, the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender has wrestled with the increasing number of young fathers who are facing the death penalty and see little reason to accept a negotiated plea of something less than death. The proposed interagency program will be designed to establish a program to provide opportunities for fathering even while in prison. The litigation purpose for the involvement of the Multi-County Public Defender Office is to limit the number of death penalty trials and the increasing costs of those trials upon the counties and the State of Georgia.
Conclusion
The Office of Multi-County Public Defender continues to provide assistance whenever and wherever it is requested and needed. There is a continuing need for additional experienced attorneys to assist appointed counsel in death penalty cases throughout the State of Georgia. In the coming year, the Multi-County Public Defender Office will continue to seek new and innovative ways to expand its ability to provide assistance to attorneys who are called upon to represent defendants in death penalty cases. The continuing value of the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender was underscored by former Chief Justice Harold Clarke when he noted at the announcement of the formation of the Office of the Multi-County Public Defender, "If 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."
50

Number of New Death Penalty Case Files Opened Each Year 1992-2001
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Number of Death Sentences Issues in Georgia Each Year 1973-2001
30 25 20 15 10
5 0
51

1973 1974

1992

1975

1976 1977

1993

1978

1979 1980

1994

1981

1982 1983

1995

1984

1985 1986

1996

1987

1988 1989

1997

1990

1991 1992

1998

1993

1994 1995

1999

1996

1997 1998

2000

1999

2000

2001

2001

52

Professional Education

The Georgia Indigent Defense Council is celebrating the 10th Anniversary of providing quality legal education to indigent defense attorneys throughout Georgia. Last year, G.I.D.C. sponsored over 60 seminars and workshops designed specifically to benefit indigent defense attorneys in Georgia. Close to 4000 attorneys received training from G.I.D.C. in 2001. 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.

G.I.D.C. is the second largest Continuing Legal Education provider in Georgia. Only the State Bar of Georgia provides more trainings. Without G.I.D.C., 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.

G.I.D.C.'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 timely 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. G.I.D.C. presents cutting

53

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 understanding of such evidence.
G.I.D.C. 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 60 seminars in 2001. These seminars ranged from full day seminars to workshops lasting an hour. The 2001 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 Atlanta Thomasville Savannah Augusta
Crime Scene Evidence and Investigation Post Conviction Public Defender Seminar Basic Criminal Defense (with State Bar of Georgia)
Atlanta Savannah La Grange Jasper Macon Athens Lawrenceville Basic Criminal Procedure Advanced Criminal Procedure
54

New Lawyer Training (2 days) Effective Motions Practice Defending a Notorious Client 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 topic.
Defending a Drug Case Defending a Traffic Case - Thomasville Defending a Child Molestation Case Defending a Homicide Case Defending a DUI Case
Juvenile General Seminars These seminars are conducted by the Juvenile Advocacy Division of G.I.D.C. with active involvement of the Juvenile Court Judges in the area.
Marietta Atlanta Athens Rockmart Douglasville Special Education - Atlanta
Death Penalty Seminars These seminars are conducted by the Multicounty Public Defender of G.I.D.C. and boast a faculty of the most outstanding death penalty lawyers in the country.
Advanced Death Penalty Seminar (3 day training) Death Penalty Certification Training
Augusta Atlanta
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.
Mental Health Advocacy Representing a Juvenile Client Homicide
55

Appeals Investigating a Criminal Case Child Molestation Forensic Evidence Crime Scene Evidence Ballistics Motions Practice DUI
In addition to these small group workshops, the G.I.D.C. 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 three years, G.I.D.C. has sponsored seminars designed for the support personnel who work with criminal defense attorneys - paralegals and investigators.
Investigator Basic Investigation Techniques Crime Scene Reconstruction Polygraph Examinations Firearms Training Investigation: The Key to Defense Strategy
Paralegal Interviewing the Client Writing Motions, Memo, etc. Law Research - Fulton County Law Library Trial Preparation Career Fair
Computer Training Basic Internet Web Page Design Advanced Internet Advanced Word
56

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
Newsletters The staff of the Professional Education Division publishes Indigent Defense Issues quarterly. This newsletter informs legal professionals and others of G.I.D.C.'s work, recent developments in the law and other information pertaining to indigent defense.
57

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.
Virgil L. Adams is the senior partner in the Macon law firm of Adams, Jordan & Treadwell, P.C. His practice focuses primarily in the area of personal injury as well as criminal defense. Mr. Adams also serves as attorney for Bibb County. Mr. Adams is a member of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is a certified agent with the National Football League and National Basketball Association. Mr. Adams represents the 3rd Judicial Administrative District.
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.
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.
61

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.
62

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.
63

State Funding of Indigent Defense

Comparison of State & Total Indigent Defense Funding Fiscal Years 2001 & 2002 (Calendar Years 1999 & 2000)

Millions Millions

FY01-CY99 60

50

40

30

20

10

0

State Funding

Total Cost

Clerks' & Sheriffs' Funding

Calendar Year 1999 Expenses, Statewide: $40,591,424

FY 2001 State Funding (CY 1999 expenses): $4,890,000

Percentage of State Funding to Total Cost of Indigent

Defense in Fiscal Year 2001:

12.05%

Total FY2001 Funding, all sources:

$6,310,226

Calendar Year 1999 Case:

167,497

FY02-CY00 60

50

40

30

20

10

0

State Funding

Total Cost

Clerks' & Sheriffs' Funding

Calendar Year 2000 Expenses, Statewide: $48,935,814

Percentage Increase in Expenses:

20.56%

FY 2002 State Funding (CY 2000 expenses): $5,390,000

Percentage Increase in Legislative Funding: 10.22%

Percentage of State Funding to Total Cost of Indigent

Defense in Fiscal Year 2002:

11.01%

Total FY2002 Funding,15 all sources:

$7,250,250

Percentage Increase in Funding, all sources: 14.90%

Calendar Year 2000 Cases:

169,982

Percentage Increase in Cases:

1.48%

15 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. In addition to those funds, the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget includes $237,935 for the Council's Improvement Grants program, which was augmented with $170,065 in Georgia Bar Foundation funds for a total of $408,000.
67

Statewide Indigent Defense Costs
Fiscal Years 1997 through 200316
(Calendar Years 1995 through 2001)

Millions

60

50

40

30

20

10

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

Year

Total Cost

Percentage Increase

State Funding

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

$53,957,353 $48,935,814 $40,591,424 $36,880,229 $33,790,717 $31,499,299 $30,209,370

10.26% 20.56% 10.06%
9.14% 7.27% 4.27% 0.00%

$9,127,589 $5,390,000 $4,890,000 $4,340,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $2,500,000

16 The projected cost of indigent defense for Fiscal Year 2003/Calendar Year 2001 is based on the average increase in statewide indigent defense costs (10.26%) over the period from Calendar Year 1995 through Calendar Year 2000. However, the percentage increase in indigent defense costs has steadily risen over that period, with the increase between Calendar Years 1999 and 2000 being nearly five times the increase between Calendar Years 1997 and 1998. Therefore, it is logical to presume that the cost of indigent defense for Fiscal Year 2003/Calendar Year 2001 will actually be higher than $53,957,353 statewide.
68

Statewide Indigent Defense Caseloads
Fiscal Years 1997 through 200317
(Calendar Years 1995 through 2001)

Thousands

250 200 150 100 50
0 FY97-CY95 FY98-CY96 FY99-CY97 FY00-CY98 FY01-CY99 FY02-CY00 FY03-CY01 est

Year
FY03-CY01 est FY02-CY00 FY01-CY99 FY00-CY98 FY99-CY97 FY98-CY96 FY97-CY95
CY95-00 average

Number of Cases
194,552 169,982 167,497 167,764 165,264 147,608 102,149
14.45% increase

17The projected indigent defense caseload for Fiscal Year 2003/Calendar Year 2001 is based on the average increase in statewide indigent defense cases (14.45%) over the period from Calendar Year 1995 through Calendar Year 2000.
69

Total Indigent Defense Costs Statewide versus State Funding
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003
(Calendar Years 1995 through 2001)

Millions

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

FY97-CY95

FY99-CY97

FY01-CY99

FY03-CY01 est

FY98-CY96

FY00-CY98

FY02-CY00

Total Cost of Indigent Defense State Funding
Average Annual Increase 10.26%

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

Total Cost
$53,957,353 $48,935,814 $40,591,424 $36,880,229 $33,790,717 $31,499,299 $30,209,370

State Funding
$9,127,589 $5,390,000 $4,890,000 $4,340,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $2,500,000

70

Statewide Indigent Defense Delivery Systems in Georgia18
Fiscal Year 2002
(Calendar Year 2000)

State-wide Indigent Defense Delivery Systems in Georgia CY2000/FY2002

4.4%

12.6%

45.9%

37.1%

Public Defender Contract Defender Appointed Unfunded

Public Defender

20

Contract Defender

59

Appointed

73

Unfunded/Unknown

7

18 Of the seven counties that chose not to apply for Georgia Indigent Defense Council funding in Fiscal Year 2002, six (the four counties in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit: Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade & Walker; plus Jones and Putnam) use an appointed or "panel" system for indigent representation, while the seventh (Jackson) has a full-time public defender office.
71

Criminal Justice Funding
Fiscal Year 2002

58.8%

1.0% 0.4%

2.7% 3.1% 3.3% 3.8%
4.2%

5.4%

17.5%

Indigent Defense Department of Law Prosecution Trial Judges Parole Motor Vehicles GBI Public Safety Juvenile Justice Corrections

Agency
Indigent Defense Department of Law Prosecution Trial Judges Parole Motor Vehicles GBI Public Safety Juvenile Justice Corrections
72

Funding
$6,659,946 $16,147,017 $43,586,137 $49,167,146 $52,691,248 $60,538,540 $67,069,372 $86,138,470 $280,719,650 $944,733,483

Judicial Branch Funding
Fiscal Year 2002

36.9%

5.0%

0.2% 0.9% 1.1%
5.5%

9.5%

8.4%

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

32.7%

Agency
Indigent Defense Judicial Qualifications ICJE Juvenile Courts Supreme Court Judicial Council Court of Appeals Prosecution Superior Courts
73

Funding
$6,659,946 $271,476
$1,133,843 $1,424,347 $7,382,486 $12,615,386 $11,143,760 $43,586,137 $49,167,146

Indigent Defense Funding
Fiscal Year 2002
(Calendar Year 2000)

11.0%

3.8%

County Funding State Appropriation Clerks' & Sheriffs' Interest

85.2%

Data Includes 152 Applicant Counties

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

$41,685,563 $5,390,000 $1,860,250 $48,935,814

74

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program County Map Detailing Award of State Funds for Fiscal Year 2002
(July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002)
Legend:
Green - Counties Funded in FY2002 Red - Counties Not Applying for Funding in FY2002
Counties Not Funded in Fiscal Year 2002
Seven counties elected not to apply for Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties funding in Fiscal Year 2002: the four counties in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit (Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, and Walker), plus Jackson, Jones and Putnam. Of these counties, the four counties in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit have never applied for Grants to Counties funding, while at one time the other three counties did receive Georgia Indigent Defense Council funding.
75

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:

Green - Counties Funded in FY2001

.

Red - Counties Not Applying for Funding in FY2001

Counties Not Funded in Fiscal Year 2001
Twenty-three counties elected not to apply for Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties funding 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. Of those counties, fourteen (Bulloch, Catoosa, Chattahoochee, Chattooga, Dade, Effingham, Gordon, Jenkins, Marion, Lanier, Screven, Talbot, Taylor, and Walker) have never applied for Grants to Counties funding, while at one time the remaining counties did receive Georgia Indigent Defense Council funding, with the exception of Turner County which applied once for funding but failed to form a Tripartite Committee required by the Georgia Code to receive state funds.
76

COUNTY
APPLING ATKINSON BACON BAKER BALDWIN BANKS BARROW BARTOW BEN HILL BERRIEN BIBB BLECKELY BRANTLEY BROOKS BRYAN BULLOCH BURKE BUTTS CALHOUN CAMDEN CANDLER CARROLL CATOOSA
CHARLTON CHATHAM CHATTAHOOCHEE CHATTOOGA
CHEROKEE CLARKE CLAY CLAYTON CLINCH COBB COFFEE COLQUITT COLUMBIA

Georgia Indigent Defense Council Grants to Counties Subsidy Program Award of State Funds by County for Fiscal Year 2002
(July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002)

2000 Pop. U.S. Total CY 2000 Total CY 2000 FY 2002 Award of

Census

Indigent

Indigent Def.

Funds

Caseload

Expenditures

Cost per Resident

% State Funding

*

17,419

171

$147,065.81

$11,144.80

$8.44

7.58%

*

7,609

*

10,103

*

4,074

*

44,700

19

$14,882.13

199

$61,960.15

26

$10,367.00

865

$262,326.65

$2,467.37 $6,662.20 $1,576.44 $28,879.34

$1.96 $6.13 $2.54 $5.87

16.58% 10.75% 15.21% 11.01%

*

14,422

145

$45,101.46

$6,448.86

$3.13

14.30%

*

46,144

604

$226,787.53

$25,142.27

$4.91

11.09%

*

76,019

*

17,484

*

16,235

*

153,887

*

11,666

731 334 59 2,368 116

$178,512.67 $32,500.00 $26,444.71 $1,161,503.00 $12,345.74

$31,466.02 $8,676.10 $5,264.74 $102,462.43 $4,316.67

$2.35 $1.86 $1.63 $7.55 $1.06

17.63% 26.70% 19.91% 8.82% 34.96%

*

14,629

397

$41,623.21

$9,031.53

$2.85

21.70%

*

16,450

135

$77,807.06

$8,002.41

$4.73

10.28%

*

23,417

328

$168,000.00

$14,928.80

$7.17

8.89%

*

55,983

661

$161,762.50

$25,581.65

$2.89

15.81%

*

22,243

209

$132,693.75

$12,109.33

$5.97

9.13%

*

19,522

*

6,320

*

43,664

*

9,577

323

$78,147.13

111

$14,075.00

505

$94,000.00

43

$13,703.05

$10,696.49 $3,118.75 $18,659.95 $3,122.66

$4.00 $2.23 $2.15 $1.43

13.69% 22.16% 19.85% 22.79%

*

87,268

2,756

$436,012.97

$64,866.86

$5.00

14.88%

53,282

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

10,282

149

$44,637.00

$5,538.16

$4.34

12.41%

*

232,048

7,574 $2,341,155.00

$218,468.89

$10.09

9.33%

*

14,882

22

$12,095.00

$4,040.95

$0.81

33.41%

25,470

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

141,903

1,965

$643,950.00

$76,491.79

$4.54

11.88%

*

101,489

*

3,357

*

236,517

*

6,878

*

607,751

3,677 74
6,107 110
16,145

$1,680,783.22 $48,868.00
$1,881,671.81 $12,606.77
$3,159,989.00

$123,517.95 $3,335.25
$187,103.56 $3,180.42
$424,060.01

$16.56 $14.56 $7.96 $1.83 $5.20

7.35% 6.83% 9.94% 25.23% 13.42%

*

37,413

545

$89,893.00

$17,518.80

$2.40

19.49%

*

42,053

413

$181,362.48

$20,530.83

$4.31

11.32%

*

89,288

473

$265,376.37

$34,927.90

$2.97

13.16%

77

COUNTY
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 HARALSON HARRIS HART HEARD HENRY HOUSTON IRWIN JACKSON
JASPER

2000 Pop. U.S. Total CY 2000 Total CY 2000 FY 2002 Award of

Census

Indigent

Indigent Def.

Funds

Caseload

Expenditures

Cost per Resident

% State Funding

*

15,771

*

89,215

*

12,495

*

21,996

74

$28,754.00

987

$219,047.26

50

$15,727.00

232

$38,000.00

$5,403.18 $38,643.29 $3,930.62 $8,819.94

$1.82 $2.46 $1.26 $1.73

18.79% 17.64% 24.99% 23.21%

15,154

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

15,999

*

28,240

119

$59,582.73

251

$77,197.00

$7,062.23 $11,871.44

$3.72 $2.73

11.85% 15.38%

*

665,865

13,714 $4,561,999.00

$462,977.15

$6.85

10.15%

*

19,171

418

$20,842.63

$9,517.34

$1.09

45.66%

*

11,525

*

96,065

*

92,174

*

12,354

97 3,423 2,894
300

$22,000.00 $1,001,724.80 $1,068,487.82
$61,414.00

$4,438.43 $94,675.58 $90,655.74 $8,218.57

$1.91 $10.43 $11.59 $4.97

20.17% 9.45% 8.48% 13.38%

*

3,754

35

$14,485.00

$1,750.41

$3.86

12.08%

*

37,535

528

$108,844.52

$18,062.50

$2.90

16.59%

*

20,511

*

21,837

*

10,495

*

19,798

*

91,263

300

$59,744.12

174

$36,360.33

53

$73,825.16

155

$48,517.00

793

$277,504.47

$10,001.30 $8,110.75 $5,643.26 $7,895.30 $39,201.99

$2.91 $1.67 $7.03 $2.45 $3.04

16.74% 22.31% 7.64% 16.27% 14.13%

*

90,565

*

98,407

*

20,283

2,741 1,691
192

$451,195.89 $494,051.28 $74,565.51

$66,011.10 $58,259.12 $9,352.39

$4.98 $5.02 $3.68

14.63% 11.79% 12.54%

*

816,006

29,837 $9,782,746.00

$859,013.76

$11.99

8.78%

*

23,456

122

$55,861.75

$8,643.12

$2.38

15.47%

*

2,556

*

67,568

*

44,104

*

23,659

7 1,888
505 193

$2,613.41 $548,806.00 $74,250.00 $69,751.00

$747.77 $55,379.94 $18,034.31 $9,949.40

$1.02 $8.12 $1.68 $2.95

28.61% 10.09% 24.29% 14.26%

*

14,406

668

$69,666.76

$12,875.13

$4.84

18.48%

*

588,448

6,504 $2,731,513.00

$302,061.89

$4.64

11.06%

*

35,902

*

139,277

*

10,076

*

25,690

*

23,695

277 1,352
186 312 116

$169,579.92 $755,647.22 $30,705.00 $79,797.17 $46,492.14

$17,270.21 $73,519.81 $5,371.16 $12,035.19 $8,289.73

$4.72 $5.43 $3.05 $3.11 $1.96

10.18% 9.73% 17.49% 15.08% 17.83%

*

22,997

231

$62,242.40

$9,925.72

$2.71

15.95%

*

11,012

145

$15,000.00

$4,572.80

$1.36

30.49%

*

119,341

*

110,765

*

9,931

41,589

3,760 3,959
81 0

$774,229.55 $788,433.50 $58,054.94
$0.00

$95,147.11 $95,833.22 $5,232.71
$0.00

$6.49 $7.12 $5.85

12.29% 12.15% 9.01%

*

11,426

120

$44,500.00

$5,485.23

$3.89

12.33%

78

COUNTY
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 PAULDING PEACH PICKENS PIERCE PIKE POLK PULASKI PUTNAM
QUITMAN RABUN RANDOLPH RICHMOND ROCKDALE

2000 Pop. U.S. Total CY 2000 Total CY 2000 FY 2002 Award of Cost per

% State

Census

Indigent

Indigent Def.

Funds

Resident

Funding

Caseload

Expenditures

*

12,684

118

$159,985.35

$9,988.50

$12.61

6.24%

*

17,266

463

$31,024.01

$9,936.13

$1.80

32.03%

*

8,575

130

$26,626.95

$4,290.20

$3.11

16.11%

*

8,560

251

$32,112.00

$5,767.14

$3.75

17.96%

23,639

0

$0.00

$0.00

*

15,912

*

7,241

*

44,874

*

24,757

*

61,610

*

8,348

*

10,304

*

92,115

*

21,016

*

14,074

*

25,730

*

7,144

*

21,231

*

10,847

*

22,534

*

6,383

*

23,932

*

21,757

*

8,270

*

15,457

*

36,506

*

186,291

*

62,001

*

26,225

*

12,635

*

81,678

*

23,668

*

22,983

*

15,636

*

13,688

*

38,127

*

9,588

18,812

338 14 1,009 504 1,148 101 198 1,210 337 96 236 21 256 328 458 95 328 259 51 277 388 8,053 2,178 207 114 711 199 321 188 142 466 145 0

$114,545.71 $7,863.34
$163,200.00 $99,839.33 $358,868.00 $20,814.76 $91,013.00 $461,628.61 $100,466.00 $87,554.70 $70,474.76 $1,561.00 $61,903.35 $60,000.00 $81,243.53 $20,897.00 $63,347.00 $62,358.10 $8,482.87 $131,028.53 $106,923.00 $907,228.00 $632,278.94 $108,304.96 $33,883.28 $117,490.00 $91,437.00 $110,145.46 $46,581.00 $52,586.04 $153,256.75 $9,604.58
$0.00

$11,375.29 $2,073.64 $26,801.31 $14,589.50 $39,237.89 $3,718.97 $7,763.74 $50,562.26 $12,001.64 $7,410.93 $10,898.66 $1,894.31 $9,778.28 $8,121.92 $12,918.00 $3,214.35 $11,202.91 $9,945.59 $2,720.09 $11,232.84 $16,279.56 $160,541.31 $60,251.34 $12,092.97 $5,305.34 $30,293.51 $10,811.05 $12,632.58 $7,232.13 $6,526.01 $19,171.59 $4,052.79
$0.00

$7.20 $1.09 $3.64 $4.03 $5.82 $2.49 $8.83 $5.01 $4.78 $6.22 $2.74 $0.22 $2.92 $5.53 $3.61 $3.27 $2.65 $2.87 $1.03 $8.48 $2.93 $4.87 $10.20 $4.13 $2.68 $1.44 $3.86 $4.79 $2.98 $3.84 $4.02 $1.00

9.93% 26.37% 16.42% 14.61% 10.93% 17.87% 8.53% 10.95% 11.95% 8.46% 15.46% 121.35% 15.80% 13.54% 15.90% 15.38% 17.68% 15.95% 32.07% 8.57% 15.23% 17.70% 9.53% 11.17% 15.66% 25.78% 11.82% 11.47% 15.53% 12.41% 12.51% 42.20%

*

2,598

*

15,050

*

7,791

*

199,775

*

70,111

20 89 109 2,967 1,476

$5,150.70 $56,255.00 $25,547.62 $1,001,315.54 $292,637.00

$987.83 $6,408.42 $3,851.37 $113,286.29 $42,194.92

$1.98 $3.74 $3.28 $5.01 $4.17

19.18% 11.39% 15.08% 11.31% 14.42%

79

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

2000 Pop. U.S. Total CY 2000 Total CY 2000 FY 2002 Award of

Census

Indigent

Indigent Def.

Funds

Caseload

Expenditures

Cost per Resident

% State Funding

*

3,766

*

15,374

*

9,369

*

58,417

53 247 109 2,141

$12,538.00 $57,592.50 $32,000.00 $455,000.00

$1,871.90 $8,200.80 $4,445.01 $52,541.27

$3.33 $3.75 $3.42 $7.79

14.93% 14.24% 13.89% 11.55%

*

25,435

357

$166,092.39

$15,621.49

$6.53

9.41%

*

5,252

125

$16,000.00

$3,095.97

$3.05

19.35%

*

33,200

*

6,498

*

2,077

*

22,305

*

8,815

859

$344,851.41

26

$17,946.04

8

$5,499.96

616

$123,583.25

35

$29,209.80

$29,246.02 $2,402.69
$756.03 $16,090.75 $3,435.16

$10.39 $2.76 $2.65 $5.54 $3.31

8.48% 13.39% 13.75% 13.02% 11.76%

*

11,794

147

$13,018.76

$4,697.98

$1.10

36.09%

*

10,970

201

$56,731.84

$6,687.38

$5.17

11.79%

*

42,737

*

38,407

*

26,067

*

9,319

842

$305,590.75

516

$150,000.00

162

$67,754.85

75

$19,734.76

$29,780.90 $19,643.81 $10,092.82 $3,624.02

$7.15 $3.91 $2.60 $2.12

9.75% 13.10% 14.90% 18.36%

*

6,854

137

$22,425.00

$3,820.86

$3.27

17.04%

*

58,779

1,983

$442,583.10

$50,497.21

$7.53

11.41%

*

9,504

284

$55,049.00

$7,171.47

$5.79

13.03%

*

10,590

84

$10,735.00

$3,676.05

$1.01

34.24%

*

17,289

143

$52,730.39

$7,355.95

$3.05

13.95%

*

27,597

61,053

490

$227,000.00

0

$0.00

$19,752.23 $0.00

$8.23

8.70%

*

60,687

1,363

$345,044.47

$40,794.19

$5.69

11.82%

*

35,483

*

6,336

*

21,176

*

26,565

2,361 44 157 348

$356,782.17 $28,559.62 $34,638.87 $159,202.00

$46,075.92 $2,946.00 $7,718.43 $15,528.84

$10.06 $4.51 $1.64 $5.99

12.91% 10.32% 22.28% 9.75%

*

2,390

49

$6,597.38

$1,300.44

$2.76

19.71%

*

6,179

50

$5,811.82

$2,138.74

$0.94

36.80%

*

19,944

*

83,525

*

8,577

*

10,687

*

10,220

179 1,354
60 104 200

$88,322.50 $284,975.00 $14,500.00 $25,901.32 $36,745.00

$9,643.43 $43,656.58 $3,105.54 $4,466.21 $5,773.45

$4.43 $3.41 $1.69 $2.42 $3.60

10.92% 15.32% 21.42% 17.24% 15.71%

*

21,967

231

$63,835.41

$9,751.35

$2.91

15.28%

152

8,186,451

169,982

$48,935,813.58

$5,390,000.00

11.01%

TOTAL FUNDED POPULATION TOTAL % OF POPULATION FUNDED

7,947,452 97.08%

80

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

*

CLINCH

COBB

*

COFFEE

*

COLQUITT

*

COLUMBIA

*

COOK

*

COWETA

*

CRAWFORD

*

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent Caseload Def. Expenditures

15,744
6,213
9,566 3,615 39,530 10,308 29,721 55,911 16,245 14,153 149,967 10,430 11,077 15,398 15,438 43,125
20,579 15,326 5,013 30,167 7,744 71,422 42,464
8,496 216,935 16,934
22,242
90,204 87,594 3,364 182,052 6,160
447,745 29,592 36,645 66,031 13,456 53,853 8,991

0
0
99 26 981 103 520 505 509 61 2,740 143 371 143 902 0
355 223 110 637 49 1,423
0
165 5,955
0
0
1,999 3,953
58 7,243
0
11,590 725 482 364 68 818 61

$0.00
$0.00
$136,052.00 $9,923.00
$180,199.69 $21,832.00 $123,785.00 $155,650.00 $25,300.63 $18,000.00 $990,497.00 $12,345.74 $48,546.67 $48,823.26 $164,106.22
$0.00
$86,863.33 $63,618.43 $13,850.00 $110,150.00 $17,859.55 $382,757.65
$0.00
$49,300.00 $1,583,508.38
$0.00
$0.00
$504,699.00 $1,004,826.00
$20,245.00 $1,517,263.88
$0.00
$2,836,421.00 $98,802.00 $161,859.34 $148,034.24 $18,000.00 $166,214.27 $12,700.12

FY 2001 FY 2001 Clerks FY 2001 Total

Appropriated & Sheriffs

Funding

Funds

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$9,006.01 $1,626.19 $27,441.10 $4,658.35 $18,044.70

$3,426.06 $618.63
$10,439.12 $1,772.12 $6,864.55

$12,432.07 $2,244.82 $37,880.22 $6,430.47 $24,909.25

$26,239.82

$9,982.13 $36,221.95

$10,349.40

$3,937.11 $14,286.51

$5,132.46 $106,874.08
$4,699.57 $8,546.50

$1,952.49 $40,656.96 $1,787.81 $3,251.25

$7,084.95 $147,531.04
$6,487.38 $11,797.75

$7,503.87

$2,854.62 $10,358.49

$19,530.21

$7,429.67 $26,959.88

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$12,491.44

$4,751.98 $17,243.42

$8,857.10

$3,369.41 $12,226.51

$2,978.27

$1,132.99

$4,111.26

$18,756.01

$7,135.15 $25,891.16

$3,282.00

$1,248.54

$4,530.54

$48,475.32 $0.00

$18,440.95 $0.00

$66,916.27 $0.00

$5,876.15 $180,030.36
$0.00

$2,235.40 $68,487.02
$0.00

$8,111.55 $248,517.38
$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$64,041.51

$24,362.62 $88,404.13

$102,436.40 $2,284.41
$180,499.05 $0.00

$38,968.78 $869.04
$68,665.32 $0.00

$141,405.18 $3,153.45
$249,164.37 $0.00

$347,412.22 $19,001.65 $21,070.72

$132,162.30 $7,228.59 $8,015.71

$479,574.52 $26,230.24 $29,086.43

$27,290.47

$10,381.82 $37,672.29

$5,012.65

$1,906.91

$6,919.56

$29,155.11 $3,527.82

$11,091.17 $1,342.05

$40,246.28 $4,869.87

81

COUNTY
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
HARALSON HARRIS HART HEARD HENRY HOUSTON IRWIN JACKSON
JASPER
JEFF DAVIS JEFFERSON JENKINS
JOHNSON JONES

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent

FY 2001 FY 2001 Clerks FY 2001 Total

Caseload Def. Expenditures Appropriated & Sheriffs

Funding

Funds

*

20,011

257

$31,503.71

$9,161.56

$3,485.24 $12,646.80

13,147

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

9,429

*

25,511

*

545,837

*

17,607

107 211 16,010 427

$119,498.12 $70,493.00 $4,093,288.00 $20,842.63

$8,382.18 $11,762.52 $467,344.80 $9,739.63

$3,188.74 $4,474.69 $177,786.97 $3,705.14

$11,570.92 $16,237.21 $645,131.77 $13,444.77

*

9,901

92

$16,598.89

$4,231.42

$1,609.71

$5,841.13

*

96,311

3,170

$1,129,139.64

$102,158.93

$38,863.22 $141,022.15

*

71,120

*

11,854

*

2,334

25,687

2,562 253 25 0

$553,412.00 $53,000.00 $14,808.76
$0.00

$66,330.93 $7,786.51 $1,467.26
$0.00

$25,233.57 $2,962.14
$558.17 $0.00

$91,564.50 $10,748.65 $2,025.43
$0.00

*

18,949

*

20,546

*

8,724

513

$56,023.28

$12,351.10

$4,698.60 $17,049.70

133

$47,389.75

$8,737.03

$3,323.73 $12,060.76

189

$78,843.56

$7,357.54

$2,798.95 $10,156.49

*

15,992

90

$48,188.97

$7,122.79

$2,709.65

$9,832.44

*

62,415

588

$242,336.53

$32,282.19

$12,280.77 $44,562.96

*

81,251

*

44,083

*

16,650

*

648,951

2,319 1,626
328 31,536

$453,775.20 $269,762.75 $50,323.30 $7,840,301.00

$62,696.72 $38,542.05 $9,702.01 $796,704.64

$23,851.04 $14,662.14 $3,690.83 $303,081.80

$86,547.76 $53,204.19 $13,392.84 $1,099,786.44

*

13,368

*

2,357

*

62,496

35,072

187 6
1,659 0

$41,699.05 $1,519.27 $606,074.89
$0.00

$7,098.64 $754.91
$57,332.86 $0.00

$2,700.46 $287.18
$21,810.52 $0.00

$9,799.10 $1,042.09 $79,143.38
$0.00

*

20,279

*

11,793

208

$56,229.00

$9,749.86

$3,709.03 $13,458.89

714

$53,824.81

$12,289.41

$4,675.13 $16,964.54

*

352,910

5,893

$2,546,251.00

$254,749.60

$96,911.66 $351,661.26

*

27,621

316

$170,138.99

$17,354.66

$6,602.05 $23,956.71

*

95,428

8,908

2,660 0

$806,006.00 $0.00

$83,981.93 $0.00

$31,948.34 $0.00

$115,930.27 $0.00

*

21,966

216

$51,746.19

$10,102.55

$3,843.21 $13,945.76

*

17,788

*

19,712

*

8,628

*

58,741

101 298 97 2,823

$69,766.74 $58,080.30 $15,000.00 $481,682.19

$8,580.57 $10,547.15 $3,872.64 $62,652.75

$3,264.21 $4,012.34 $1,473.23 $23,834.31

$11,844.78 $14,559.49 $5,345.87 $86,487.06

*

89,208

4,150

$831,241.00

$97,818.16

$37,211.91 $135,030.07

*

8,649

88

$33,825.03

$4,546.66

$1,729.64

$6,276.30

30,005

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

8,453

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

12,032

135

$52,787.89

$6,677.66

$2,540.31

$9,217.97

*

17,408

235

$40,392.18

$8,602.56

$3,272.58 $11,875.14

8,247

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

8,329

113

$32,542.50

$4,652.16

$1,769.77

$6,421.93

*

20,739

325

$116,242.46

$13,422.39

$5,106.13 $18,528.52

82

COUNTY
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 PAULDING PEACH PICKENS PIERCE PIKE POLK PULASKI PUTNAM QUITMAN RABUN RANDOLPH RICHMOND ROCKDALE SCHLEY SCREVEN
SEMINOLE SPALDING STEPHENS STEWART
SUMTER TALBOT

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent

FY 2001 FY 2001 Clerks FY 2001 Total

Caseload Def. Expenditures Appropriated & Sheriffs

Funding

Funds

*

13,038

293

$73,861.28

$9,332.72

$3,550.35 $12,883.07

5,531

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

39,988

*

16,250

*

52,745

*

7,442

*

6,202

*

75,981

*

14,573

*

13,114

*

21,050

5,590

654 421 1,121 125 171 1,211 238 175 248
0

$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

$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

$8,919.29 $3,855.49 $15,029.00 $1,610.79 $3,846.50 $19,188.38 $3,462.26 $2,767.51 $3,914.04
$0.00

$32,365.24 $13,990.33 $54,535.42 $5,845.05 $13,957.72 $69,628.46 $12,563.42 $10,042.40 $14,202.80
$0.00

*

20,119

*

8,634

*

22,411

*

6,280

*

20,275

*

17,113

*

7,163

*

12,883

*

26,147

*

179,278

*

41,808

*

17,618

*

9,763

*

41,611

*

21,189

*

14,432

*

13,328

*

10,224

*

33,815

*

8,108

*

14,137

*

2,209

*

11,648

*

8,023

*

189,719

*

54,091

*

3,588

13,842

352 360 468 55 272 136 68 121 283 11,983 2,318 279 154 448 298 216 215 88 335 198 332
6 104 155 3,284 1,251 53
0

$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 $118,507.00 $102,237.00 $102,674.69 $48,654.00 $128,599.00 $79,351.00 $10,400.00 $102,396.00 $1,442.50 $41,256.00 $12,678.78 $779,564.95 $290,922.00 $10,525.59
$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 $20,337.94 $12,718.56 $10,116.29 $7,639.62 $8,777.09 $15,563.91 $4,530.60 $11,154.41
$711.92 $5,809.37 $4,180.73 $114,415.96 $38,440.83 $1,905.86
$0.00

$4,271.45 $3,568.18 $5,215.62 $1,035.53 $3,945.55 $2,731.28 $1,116.04 $3,548.13 $4,967.65 $77,013.90 $20,141.28 $3,963.58 $1,961.37 $7,736.94 $4,838.39 $3,848.43 $2,906.26 $3,338.97 $5,920.81 $1,723.53 $4,243.35
$270.83 $2,210.00 $1,590.43 $43,526.04 $14,623.63
$725.03 $0.00

$15,499.72 $12,947.77 $18,925.80 $3,757.59 $14,317.14 $9,910.94 $4,049.76 $12,875.04 $18,026.01 $279,458.70 $73,086.22 $14,382.56 $7,117.19 $28,074.88 $17,556.95 $13,964.72 $10,545.88 $12,116.06 $21,484.72 $6,254.13 $15,397.76
$982.75 $8,019.37 $5,771.16 $157,942.00 $53,064.46 $2,630.89
$0.00

*

9,010

*

54,457

*

23,257

5,654

103 1,809
257 0

$8,000.00 $430,000.00 $113,705.00
$0.00

$3,752.93 $49,554.55 $13,337.67
$0.00

$1,427.69 $18,851.51 $5,073.91
$0.00

$5,180.62 $68,406.06 $18,411.58
$0.00

*

30,228

6,524

1,722 0

$241,804.50 $0.00

$34,617.90 $0.00

$13,169.32 $0.00

$47,787.22 $0.00

83

COUNTY
TALIAFERRO TATTNALL TAYLOR TELFAIR TERRELL THOMAS TIFT TOOMBS TOWNS TREUTLEN TROUP TURNER TWIGGS UNION UPSON WALKER WALTON WARE WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent

FY 2001 FY 2001 Clerks FY 2001 Total

Caseload Def. Expenditures Appropriated & Sheriffs

Funding

Funds

*

1,915

23

$6,791.78

$1,012.89

$385.32

$1,398.21

*

17,722

614

$100,249.00

$14,779.10

$5,622.25 $20,401.35

7,642

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

11,000

*

10,653

*

38,986

175

$13,018.76

$5,191.69

$1,975.02

$7,166.71

213

$306,783.00

$17,264.40

$6,567.71 $23,832.11

756

$295,707.49

$29,743.19

$11,314.88 $41,058.07

*

34,998

589

$166,245.53

$21,844.05

$8,309.90 $30,153.95

*

24,072

286

$79,990.41

$12,485.78

$4,749.83 $17,235.61

*

6,754

*

5,994

*

55,536

8,703

92 54 2,167 0

$11,348.00 $20,635.00 $373,996.23
$0.00

$3,172.05 $2,970.27 $51,080.46
$0.00

$1,206.71 $1,129.95 $19,431.99
$0.00

$4,378.76 $4,100.22 $70,512.45
$0.00

*

9,806

*

11,993

*

26,300

71

$10,735.00

$3,765.97

$1,432.65

$5,198.62

126

$36,514.91

$5,926.10

$2,254.40

$8,180.50

553

$175,795.08

$19,531.98

$7,430.34 $26,962.32

58,340

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

38,586

0

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

*

35,471

*

6,078

*

19,112

2,854 65 99

$286,686.05 $15,247.20 $44,664.53

$48,849.91 $2,883.61 $7,910.08

$18,583.45 $1,096.98 $3,009.15

$67,433.36 $3,980.59 $10,919.23

*

22,356

304

$92,020.81

$12,681.36

$4,824.23 $17,505.59

*

2,263

49

$5,190.86

$1,295.45

$492.82

$1,788.27

*

4,903

53

$5,811.82

$2,071.13

$787.90

$2,859.03

*

13,006

168

$32,034.75

$6,428.05

$2,445.35

$8,873.40

*

72,462

1,220

$296,600.00

$43,320.47

$16,479.94 $59,800.41

*

7,008

*

10,597

*

10,228

*

19,745

42

$16,960.00

$2,979.32

$1,133.39

$4,112.71

124

$21,050.49

$4,909.25

$1,867.57

$6,776.82

199

$36,766.67

$6,170.72

$2,347.46

$8,518.18

180

$39,000.00

$8,641.54

$3,287.41 $11,928.95

TOTALS

136

POPULATION OF

FUNDED COUNTIES

6,478,216 6,045,403

167,497 $40,591,423.73 $4,890,000.00 $1,860,250.21 $6,750,250.20

84

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

COUNTY

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent FY 2001 Total Cost per

Caseload Def. Expenditures Funding

Case

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 CLINCH
COBB COFFEE COLQUITT COLUMBIA COOK

15,744
6,213
9,566 3,615 39,530 10,308 29,721 55,911 16,245 14,153 149,967 10,430 11,077 15,398 15,438 43,125
20,579 15,326 5,013 30,167 7,744 71,422 42,464
8,496 216,935 16,934
22,242
90,204 87,594 3,364 182,052 6,160
447,745 29,592 36,645 66,031 13,456

0
0
99 26 981 103 520 505 509 61 2,740 143 371 143 902 0
355 223 110 637 49 1,423
0
165 5,955
0
0
1,999 3,953
58 7,243
0
11,590 725 482 364 68

$0.00
$0.00
$136,052.00 $9,923.00
$180,199.69 $21,832.00 $123,785.00 $155,650.00 $25,300.63 $18,000.00 $990,497.00 $12,345.74 $48,546.67 $48,823.26 $164,106.22
$0.00
$86,863.33 $63,618.43 $13,850.00 $110,150.00 $17,859.55 $382,757.65
$0.00
$49,300.00 $1,583,508.38
$0.00
$0.00
$504,699.00 $1,004,826.00
$20,245.00 $1,517,263.88
$0.00
$2,836,421.00 $98,802.00 $161,859.34 $148,034.24 $18,000.00

$0.00
$0.00
$12,432.07 $2,244.82 $37,880.22 $6,430.47 $24,909.25 $36,221.95 $14,286.51 $7,084.95 $147,531.04 $6,487.38 $11,797.75 $10,358.49 $26,959.88
$0.00
$17,243.42 $12,226.51 $4,111.26 $25,891.16 $4,530.54 $66,916.27
$0.00
$8,111.55 $248,517.38
$0.00
$0.00
$88,404.13 $141,405.18
$3,153.45 $249,164.37
$0.00
$479,574.52 $26,230.24 $29,086.43 $37,672.29 $6,919.56

$1,374.26 $381.65 $183.69 $211.96 $238.05 $308.22 $49.71 $295.08 $361.50 $86.33 $130.85 $341.42 $181.94
$244.69 $285.28 $125.91 $172.92 $364.48 $268.98
$298.79 $265.91
$252.48 $254.19 $349.05 $209.48
$244.73 $136.28 $335.81 $406.69 $264.71

Cost per Resident

% State Subsidy (All
Funds)

$14.22 $2.74 $4.56 $2.12 $4.16 $2.78 $1.56 $1.27 $6.60 $1.18 $4.38 $3.17 $10.63
$4.22 $4.15 $2.76 $3.65 $2.31 $5.36
$5.80 $7.30

9.14% 22.62% 21.02% 29.45% 20.12% 23.27% 56.47% 39.36% 14.89% 52.55% 24.30% 21.22% 16.43%
19.85% 19.22% 29.68% 23.51% 25.37% 17.48%
16.45% 15.69%

$5.60 $11.47 $6.02 $8.33
$6.33 $3.34 $4.42 $2.24 $1.34

17.52% 14.07% 15.58% 16.42%
16.91% 26.55% 17.97% 25.45% 38.44%

85

COUNTY
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
HARALSON HARRIS HART HEARD HENRY HOUSTON IRWIN JACKSON
JASPER
JEFF DAVIS JEFFERSON JENKINS

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent FY 2001 Total Cost per

Caseload Def. Expenditures Funding

Case

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 35,072
20,279 11,793 352,910 27,621 95,428 8,908
21,966 17,788 19,712 8,628 58,741 89,208 8,649 30,005
8,453
12,032 17,408 8,247

818 61 257 0
107 211 16,010 427 92 3,170 2,562 253 25
0
513 133 189 90 588 2,319 1,626 328 31,536 187
6 1,659
0
208 714 5,893 316 2,660
0
216 101 298 97 2,823 4,150 88
0
0
135 235
0

$166,214.27 $12,700.12 $31,503.71
$0.00
$119,498.12 $70,493.00 $4,093,288.00 $20,842.63 $16,598.89 $1,129,139.64 $553,412.00 $53,000.00 $14,808.76
$0.00
$56,023.28 $47,389.75 $78,843.56 $48,188.97 $242,336.53 $453,775.20 $269,762.75 $50,323.30 $7,840,301.00 $41,699.05 $1,519.27 $606,074.89
$0.00
$56,229.00 $53,824.81 $2,546,251.00 $170,138.99 $806,006.00
$0.00
$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

$40,246.28 $4,869.87 $12,646.80
$0.00
$11,570.92 $16,237.21 $645,131.77 $13,444.77 $5,841.13 $141,022.15 $91,564.50 $10,748.65 $2,025.43
$0.00
$17,049.70 $12,060.76 $10,156.49 $9,832.44 $44,562.96 $86,547.76 $53,204.19 $13,392.84 $1,099,786.44 $9,799.10 $1,042.09 $79,143.38
$0.00
$13,458.89 $16,964.54 $351,661.26 $23,956.71 $115,930.27
$0.00
$13,945.76 $11,844.78 $14,559.49 $5,345.87 $86,487.06 $135,030.07 $6,276.30
$0.00
$0.00
$9,217.97 $11,875.14
$0.00

$203.20 $208.20 $122.58
$1,116.80 $334.09 $255.67 $48.81 $180.42 $356.20 $216.01 $209.49 $592.35
$109.21 $356.31 $417.16 $535.43 $412.14 $195.68 $165.91 $153.42 $248.61 $222.99 $253.21 $365.33
$270.33 $75.38 $432.08 $538.41 $303.01
$239.57 $690.76 $194.90 $154.64 $170.63 $200.30 $384.38
$391.02 $171.88

Cost per

% State

Resident Subsidy (All

Funds)

$3.09

24.21%

$1.41

38.35%

$1.57

40.14%

$12.67 $2.76 $7.50 $1.18 $1.68 $11.72 $7.78 $4.47 $6.34

9.68% 23.03% 15.76% 64.51% 35.19% 12.49% 16.55% 20.28% 13.68%

$2.96 $2.31 $9.04 $3.01 $3.88 $5.58 $6.12 $3.02 $12.08 $3.12 $0.64 $9.70

30.43% 25.45% 12.88% 20.40% 18.39% 19.07% 19.72% 26.61% 14.03% 23.50% 68.59% 13.06%

$2.77 $4.56 $7.22 $6.16 $8.45

23.94% 31.52% 13.81% 14.08% 14.38%

$2.36 $3.92 $2.95 $1.74 $8.20 $9.32 $3.91

26.95% 16.98% 25.07% 35.64% 17.96% 16.24% 18.56%

$4.39 $2.32

17.46% 29.40%

86

COUNTY
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 PAULDING PEACH PICKENS PIERCE PIKE POLK PULASKI PUTNAM QUITMAN RABUN RANDOLPH RICHMOND ROCKDALE SCHLEY SCREVEN
SEMINOLE SPALDING STEPHENS STEWART

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent FY 2001 Total Cost per

Caseload Def. Expenditures Funding

Case

8,329 20,739 13,038 5,531
39,988 16,250 52,745 7,442 6,202 75,981 14,573 13,114 21,050 5,590
20,119 8,634 22,411 6,280 20,275 17,113 7,163 12,883 26,147 179,278 41,808 17,618 9,763 41,611 21,189 14,432 13,328 10,224 33,815 8,108 14,137 2,209 11,648 8,023 189,719 54,091 3,588 13,842
9,010 54,457 23,257 5,654

113 325 293
0
654 421 1,121 125 171 1,211 238 175 248
0
352 360 468 55 272 136 68 121 283 11,983 2,318 279 154 448 298 216 215 88 335 198 332
6 104 155 3,284 1,251 53
0
103 1,809
257 0

$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 $118,507.00 $102,237.00 $102,674.69 $48,654.00 $128,599.00 $79,351.00 $10,400.00 $102,396.00 $1,442.50 $41,256.00 $12,678.78 $779,564.95 $290,922.00 $10,525.59
$0.00
$8,000.00 $430,000.00 $113,705.00
$0.00

$6,421.93 $18,528.52 $12,883.07
$0.00
$32,365.24 $13,990.33 $54,535.42 $5,845.05 $13,957.72 $69,628.46 $12,563.42 $10,042.40 $14,202.80
$0.00
$15,499.72 $12,947.77 $18,925.80 $3,757.59 $14,317.14 $9,910.94 $4,049.76 $12,875.04 $18,026.01 $279,458.70 $73,086.22 $14,382.56 $7,117.19 $28,074.88 $17,556.95 $13,964.72 $10,545.88 $12,116.06 $21,484.72 $6,254.13 $15,397.76
$982.75 $8,019.37 $5,771.16 $157,942.00 $53,064.46 $2,630.89
$0.00
$5,180.62 $68,406.06 $18,411.58
$0.00

$287.99 $357.67 $252.09
$239.88 $97.98 $319.36 $201.46 $986.63 $373.62 $298.81 $289.73 $220.88
$168.25 $245.45 $165.66 $223.48 $206.72 $227.43 $124.75 $962.31 $286.37 $77.92 $205.35 $263.63 $165.72 $264.52 $343.08 $475.35 $226.30 $1,461.35 $236.87 $52.53 $308.42 $240.42 $396.69 $81.80 $237.38 $232.55 $198.60
$77.67 $237.70 $442.43

Cost per

% State

Resident Subsidy (All

Funds)

$3.91

19.73%

$5.61

15.94%

$5.67

17.44%

$3.92 $2.54 $6.79 $3.38 $27.20 $5.95 $4.88 $3.87 $2.60

20.63% 33.92% 15.23% 23.21% 8.27% 15.39% 17.67% 19.81% 25.93%

$2.94 $10.23 $3.46 $1.96 $2.77 $1.81 $1.18 $9.04 $3.10 $5.21 $11.39 $4.17 $2.61 $2.85 $4.83 $7.11 $3.65 $12.58 $2.35 $1.28 $7.24 $0.65 $3.54 $1.58 $4.11 $5.38 $2.93

26.17% 14.65% 24.41% 30.57% 25.46% 32.04% 47.74% 11.06% 22.24% 29.93% 15.35% 19.55% 27.89% 23.69% 17.17% 13.60% 21.68% 9.42% 27.08% 60.14% 15.04% 68.13% 19.44% 45.52% 20.26% 18.24% 25.00%

$0.89 $7.90 $4.89

64.76% 15.91% 16.19%

87

COUNTY
SUMTER TALBOT TALIAFERRO TATTNALL TAYLOR TELFAIR TERRELL THOMAS TIFT TOOMBS TOWNS TREUTLEN TROUP TURNER TWIGGS UNION UPSON WALKER WALTON WARE WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH

Pop. US Census Total Indigent Total Indigent FY 2001 Total Cost per

Caseload Def. Expenditures Funding

Case

30,228 6,524
1,915 17,722 7,642
11,000 10,653 38,986 34,998 24,072 6,754 5,994 55,536 8,703
9,806 11,993 26,300 58,340
38,586
35,471 6,078 19,112 22,356 2,263 4,903 13,006 72,462 7,008 10,597 10,228 19,745

1,722 0
23 614
0
175 213 756 589 286 92 54 2,167
0
71 126 553
0
0
2,854 65 99 304 49 53 168
1,220 42 124 199 180

$241,804.50 $0.00
$6,791.78 $100,249.00
$0.00
$13,018.76 $306,783.00 $295,707.49 $166,245.53 $79,990.41 $11,348.00 $20,635.00 $373,996.23
$0.00
$10,735.00 $36,514.91 $175,795.08
$0.00
$0.00
$286,686.05 $15,247.20 $44,664.53 $92,020.81 $5,190.86 $5,811.82 $32,034.75 $296,600.00 $16,960.00 $21,050.49 $36,766.67 $39,000.00

$47,787.22 $0.00
$1,398.21 $20,401.35
$0.00
$7,166.71 $23,832.11 $41,058.07 $30,153.95 $17,235.61 $4,378.76 $4,100.22 $70,512.45
$0.00
$5,198.62 $8,180.50 $26,962.32
$0.00
$0.00
$67,433.36 $3,980.59 $10,919.23 $17,505.59 $1,788.27 $2,859.03 $8,873.40 $59,800.41 $4,112.71 $6,776.82 $8,518.18 $11,928.95

$140.42
$295.29 $163.27
$74.39 $1,440.30
$391.15 $282.25 $279.69 $123.35 $382.13 $172.59
$151.20 $289.80 $317.89
$100.45 $234.57 $451.16 $302.70 $105.94 $109.66 $190.68 $243.11 $403.81 $169.76 $184.76 $216.67

Cost per

% State

Resident Subsidy (All

Funds)

$8.00

19.76%

$3.55 $5.66

20.59% 20.35%

$1.18 $28.80 $7.58 $4.75 $3.32 $1.68 $3.44 $6.73

55.05% 7.77% 13.88% 18.14% 21.55% 38.59% 19.87% 18.85%

$1.09 $3.04 $6.68

48.43% 22.40% 15.34%

$8.08 $2.51 $2.34 $4.12 $2.29 $1.19 $2.46 $4.09 $2.42 $1.99 $3.59 $1.98

23.52% 26.11% 24.45% 19.02% 34.45% 49.19% 27.70% 20.16% 24.25% 32.19% 23.17% 30.59%

TOTALS POPULATION OF FUNDED COUNTIES

6,478,216 6,045,403

167,497 $40,591,423.73 $6,750,250.20

$242.34

$6.71

12.05%

88

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 approaches 50 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 more than ten percent, and increased last year by a staggering.20.56%. 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 $5,390,000 is distributed to the 152 participating counties with nothing retained for administrative expenses, and an additional $1,032,000 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 $10,559,589 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 2001, 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 report and recommendations 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. With the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Indigent Defense and the Joint Committee, the State Bar of Georgia and the Annual Statewide Indigent Defense Symposia, there is reason to hope that great strides will be taken in the near future.
89

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