Page 39 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 39

  ffExclusively control hiring and staffing within DSO.
ffOperate independently from the AO Department of Program Services or
any other department that serves the courts.
ffRetain exclusive control with NITOAD over defender IT programs.
ffRetain ultimate discretion with DSC in setting the agenda for DSC meetings—no requirement of approval from other AO offices.
5. DSOshouldbemadeamemberoftheAOLegislativeCounciltoconsulton federal legislation.
6. RepresentativesfromDSOshouldbeinvolvedintheCongressional appropriations process.
Compensation and Staffing for Defenders and CJA Panel Attorneys
7. The annual budget request must reflect the highest statutorily available rate for CJA panel attorneys.
8. Toprovideconsistencyanddiscourageinappropriatevouchercutting,the Judicial Conference should:
ffAdopt the following standard for voucher review –
Vouchers should be considered presumptively reasonable, and voucher cuts should be limited to mathematical errors, instances in which work billed was not compensable, was not undertaken or completed, and instances in which the hours billed are clearly in excess of what was reasonably required to complete the task.
ffProvide, in consultation with DSC, comprehensive guidance concerning what constitutes a compensable service under the CJA.
9. Everycircuitshouldhaveavailableatleastonecasebudgetingattorney and reviewing judges should defer to their recommendations in reviewing vouchers and requests for expert services.
10. To promote the stability of defender offices until an independent Federal Defender Commission is created: Circuit judges should establish a policy that federal defenders shall be reappointed absent cause for non-reappointment.
11. A federal public or community defender should be established in every district which has 200 or more appointments each year. If a district does not have a sufficient number of cases, then a defender office adjacent to the district should be considered for co-designation to provide representation in that district.
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 xxxvii
States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 















































































   37   38   39   40   41