Page 57 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 57

 are going to be cases thrown out all over the country” if Congress refused to act.47 At that time, Congress had considered legislation creating a public federal defense system but had failed to enact such a law. But on August 7, 1964, following pleas from the President, the Attorney General, and the Allen Committee, Congress passed the Criminal Justice Act.48
Because Congress continued to debate whether to create institutional defend- ers, the CJA focused on compensating and providing resources to private attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants. The initial version of the Act provided for appointed counsel to be selected from a panel of designated attorneys and paid at the rate of $10 per hour for out-of-court work and $15 per hour for time spent
in court, in addition to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred.49 The maximum attorneys could recover for time and expenses was $500 for a felony case and $300 for a misdemeanor. The statute also provided compensation for service providers such as experts or investigators up to a maximum $300 per case. Importantly, the Act provided that a defendant without resources “shall be rep- resented at every stage of the proceeding from his initial appearance . . . through appeal,” granting defendants a right to representation at an earlier stage than previ- ously established by federal courts.50
Recognizing that it needed to resolve whether defender offices should be established, the 88th Congress requested further study of the issue. In 1967, the Department of Justice and the Judicial Conference of the United States commis- sioned Professor Dallin H. Oaks to undertake the study. Submitted in 1969, the Oaks Report found “a demonstrated need for some type of full-time salaried Federal defender lawyers.”51 In 1970, Congress amended the Act to create the current hybrid system of institutional defenders and private attorneys.
While the CJA was the result of extended debate and compromise between the Senate and House, one question was not debated publicly: Who should have the responsibility for running the program? The judicial branch ultimately was decided
47 CriminalJusticeActHearingsBeforetheSubcomm.No.5oftheHouseofComm.OntheJudiciary, 88th Cong. 29 (1963).
48 PubL.88–455(signedAugust20,1964)TheoriginalCJAonlycreatedcompensationforprivate attorneys; as discussed in the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88–455, 78 Stat. 552 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2012)) (Please note that the original CJA only created compensation for private attorneys; as discussed below, the statute was amended in 1970 to include federal and community defender offices.).
49 Itshouldbenotedthiswasconsiderablylowerthanprevailinglegalfeesatthetime,evenin comparison to the payment schemes that had been established by states. For example, the minimum hourly rate under the state of Michigan’s suggested state-wide fee schedule was $25.00. See John J. Haugh, The Federal Criminal Justice Act of 1964: Catalyst in the Continuing Formulation of the Rights of the Criminal Defendant, 41 Notre Dame L.Rev. 996, 1004 fn 60 (1966) (citing 43 MICH. S.B.J. 9, 28 (Aug. 1964)).
50 Seee.g.Andersonv.UnitedStates,352F.2d945,947n.3(D.C.Cir.1965).
51 DallinH.Oaks,TheCriminalJusticeActintheFederalDistrictCourts,Subcomm.onConstitutional Rights of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (Comm. Print 1969) [hereinafter Oaks Report].
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 13
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 





















































































   55   56   57   58   59