Page 85 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 85

 advocacy for the entire judiciary’s appropriation before the Congress.”148 Because the judiciary’s primary mission is to support the courts as a branch of the government, the defender program, which is not a core function of the judiciary, particularly in an adversarial system, is at a disadvantage in obtaining the funding it requires.
In looking at the manner in which the JCUS has managed the Defender Services account and requests for increases to it, the Committee considered the question of whether the needs of the judiciary as a whole take priority over those of the CJA pro- gram. The Committee heard testimony that the needs of the CJA program were, by design of the current structure, necessarily subordinated to those of the judiciary.
Defenders’ view is that the request for resources for their program is limited in order to fully fund core judiciary functions. This was not merely the opinion of the defenders. A widely circulated memo on cost containment within the judiciary states:
Defender Services. Third, we have all experienced the difficulties of budget shortfalls in the Defender Services program. Achieving significant, tan- gible cost containment in the Defender Services program has proved to
be particularly challenging. Many of the ideas suggested by the Defender Services Committee require changes in legislation or changes in practice or policy by the Department of Justice. Congress has repeatedly expressed its concern about the level of growth in this account and the judicia-
ry’s cost-containment efforts in this program. In spite of the mission of the Defender Services program, the judiciary cannot expect Congress
to continue to provide significant appropriations increases annually. If such increases are provided, it will be at the expense of the Salaries and Expenses account and by extension, the courts. Thus, the judiciary must re-focus its efforts to achieve real, tangible cost savings in this program.149
This view that a dollar spent on the Defender Services appropriation is a dollar away from the courts distills the conflict inherent in judiciary control of the CJA program budget. When DSC has pushed for greater CJA program funding in the past, “the Budget Committee said we’re not going to debate your numbers. We’re not doubting what you’re saying that that is the calculation of what is needed. We’re just telling you you’re not going to get it and you’re going to have to operate with less....We’re not going to go forward and ask for all the money that we think that we actually need to manage the program.”150
The former deputy assistant director of the Defender Services Office confirmed that many within the current JCUS structure view the budget as a zero-sum game
148 StevenG.Asin,FormerDeputyAssistantDirector,DSO,AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.Courts, Public Hearing—Philadelphia, Pa., Panel 7, Tr., at 18.
149 JCUSBudgetCommitteememo(providedtotheCommittee).
150 StevenG.Asin,FormerDeputyAssistantDirector,DSO,AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.Courts, Public Hearing—Philadelphia, Pa., Panel 7, Tr., at 19.
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 41
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 



















































































   83   84   85   86   87