Page 197 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 197

 with other evidence on expert use by panel attorneys. As the table above indi- cates, sixty percent of lawyers in the Committee’s survey said that they employ a service provider less than ten percent of the time. In fact, fewer than 12 percent
of panel attorneys have requested a service provider in a majority of their cases. When asked why they do not seek service providers, almost 84 percent of respond- ing panel attorneys said that most of their cases do not include issues that warrant assistance. These responses are provided in the following table. At hearings, panel attorneys offered similar explanations, but the responses stand in contrast to the practice of federal and community defenders, who regularly employ permanent investigators and paralegals in their cases and who testified to the importance and value of such assistance.
If you have not sought to engage a service provider in a non-capital case, why is this so?
                      There weren’t issues that would warrant assistance
I preferred to handle the matter myself
I was not familiar with appropriate service providers
There aren’t available service providers in my area
I was unaware of the process to engage a service provider
I thought it would too greatly reveal case strategy
The process to seek permission is too cumbersome
The process to obtain reimbursement is too time-consuming
A case budgeting attorney recommended against it
A public defender recommended against it.
I thought the court would deny the request
I thought the court might fail to appoint me in future cases
Other
83.37%
 23.44% 6.81%
3.12% 5.37%
4.04%
16.58% 11.92%
8.85% 3%
11.11%
       0.61% 0.26%
   3.6
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: CJA Review Committee Survey on Use of Service Providers (June 2016), available at https://cjastudy.fd.org.
Some panel attorneys indicated that they prefer to handle the issue themselves and conduct their own investigations in lieu of employing an investigator. Panel attorneys also offered this explanation at the Committee’s hearings. One public
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 153
States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 



































































   195   196   197   198   199