Page 63 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 63

 district representative to communicate with the national program and disseminate information among panel attorneys. This program was instituted after the Prado report, to improve communications with panel attorneys.
2.6.2 National Administration
The Criminal Justice Act places the national administration of the defender pro- gram under the authority of the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS or Judicial Conference) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO or Administrative Office). JCUS is authorized to create rules and regulations for the program,69 while the director of the AO is tasked with supervising the expen- ditures of funds appropriated for indigent defense.70 The statute also charges JCUS with determining the hourly rate for panel attorneys71 as well as the maximum amount to be paid to a panel attorney on any one case without additional justifi- cation and oversight.72
The Judicial Conference is the judiciary’s governing body. It consists of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who presides; the chief judges of each circuit; and one district judge from each circuit. The Conference administers judiciary funds and makes policy for the administration of the courts. JCUS has committees to advise the larger Conference on a variety of matters, such as the Committee on Criminal Law, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, and the Committee on Information Technology. The Executive Committee is the chief decision-making body within the Conference, determining the jurisdiction of the other committees and setting the calendar and agenda for JCUS.
The Defender Services Committee (DSC), comprised entirely of judges, is the JCUS Committee charged with overseeing the CJA program. DSC provides policy guidance, reviews budget and staffing requests for defender offices, monitors leg- islation affecting the appointment and compensation of counsel, assists to ensure adequate and appropriate training for defense attorneys, and helps determine
long range goals for the program. As part of the DSC’s process, it receives feedback from the defender community through established working and advisory groups. Although DSC is directly responsible for overseeing the defender program, under the current JCUS structure, this Committee does not have final decision-mak-
ing authority on any aspect of the CJA program and cannot advocate directly to Congress for appropriations for the defender program. Furthermore, under the cur- rent structure of JCUS, even DSC’s limited authority is subject to diminution. As an example, in 2012, the Executive Committee altered DSC’s jurisdiction, removing its
 69 18U.S.C.§3006A(h).
70 18U.S.C.§3006A(i).
71 18U.S.C.§3006A(d)(1). 72 18U.S.C.§3006A(d)(2).
No recommendation presented herein represents the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.
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 19
 










































































   61   62   63   64   65