Page 91 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 91

 which can lead to a loss of understanding of some of the nuances of public defense. This lack of a comprehensive knowledge of the issues can result in incomplete
information being provided during the hearings or a loss of opportunity to advocate. While additional information can be provided after a hearing, the in-person testi- mony has a different impact. Some examples have included:
ffOn more than one occasion Congress was advised that CJA budget growth was disproportionate to that of the judiciary. But as the budget growth chart shown on page 42 demonstrates, since 2005 the costs required to maintain the CJA have risen at a much slower rate than that of the judi- ciary as a whole;174
ffSuggestions that CJA panel attorneys’ perform unnecessary legal work to safeguard themselves against lawsuits and as a result inflate CJA costs. Yet the committee heard no evidence that this existed, and heard very little testimony from judges about inflated voucher submissions;175
ffStatements to Congress that the eVoucher system was set up to more care- fully scrutinize CJA vouchers and contain costs, creating the unfavorable impression that CJA counsel bills are generally excessive;176
ffSubmission to Congress of information that defender staffing for immi- gration cases would be affected only in the border courts, when in fact defender offices nationwide are currently dealing with increased staffing needs for immigration cases;177
ffWhen given the opportunity to advocate for public defense, the Budget Committee has focused instead on the needs of the judiciary as a whole.
It is worth repeating that it is the Committee’s view that the examples cited above stem from the structural defect of tasking the Budget Committee represen- tatives with also having to advocate for CJA funding. Charged with advocacy pri- marily for core functions and supported by staff with that same charge, the judi- ciary must balance the needs of the courts against the needs of public defense. If defender budget requests create a concern that funds for other core functions may be depleted, defense needs can suffer.
174 JudiciaryFY2014Budget:HearingBeforetheSubcomm.onFinancialServicesandGeneral Government of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 112th Cong. (2013) (statement of Judge Julia Gibbons, Budget Committee Chair).
175 JudiciaryFY2013Budget:HearingBeforetheSubcomm.onFinancialServicesandGeneral Government of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 111th Cong. (2012) (statement of Judge Julia Gibbons, Budget Committee Chair).
176 JudiciaryFY2018Budget:HearingBeforetheSubcomm.onFinancialServicesandGeneral Government of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 115th Cong. (2017) (statement of Judge Julia Gibbons, Budget Committee Chair).
177 Id.
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 47
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 



















































































   89   90   91   92   93