Page 138 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 138

 94 2 0 1 7
Targeted training for judges might lessen this problem, but the judges who testified before this Committee reported that their judicial training did not include even an introduction to the basics of criminal defense or any discussion of how
to evaluate vouchers. One circuit judge stated that he went through “baby judge school” as a magistrate judge, as a district judge, and as a circuit judge, and despite all the training for each, “there was no discussion of the CJA.”394 Without such train- ing, most judges had no experience or practical knowledge to help them determine what constituted “reasonable” defense work. There was broad agreement that this lack of training does a disservice to all involved.
Some training that was previously provided has been discontinued. A defender who had been faculty for judicial training on the CJA explained: “They stopped doing that and I asked them why and the answer was that they shortened the [train- ing] because of budget issues.” 395 Other useful training has also been cut. “[There was a] series of criminal justice management [judges] the view- point from the CJA and why an expert would be needed. Those seminars went by the wayside about eight or ten years ago when the budget cuts were made.”396 In the absence of training, the only regular communication judges receive on CJA matters is through emails from the Administrative Office. Judges admitted that emails were not enough, as most judges, given the number they receive each day, simply “don’t read the emails”397 or see “a memo from the AO [and] hit delete.”398 Emails are not an adequate substitute for substantive CJA training.
In the absence of formal training, there are some ad hoc efforts to fill gaps in knowledge. Panel attorneys described efforts to educate judges about what defense attorneys do: “I’ve had meetings with judges about vouchers. . . . [T]here was a learning curve for one of our new judges and he appreciated the fact that I came
in and sat down and explained some things and he was just trying to get a feel for what’s reasonable.”399
Sometimes federal defenders fill this role. One judge told the Committee, “One quasi-solution that many of us have come up with is to ask the federal defender’s office to take a look at the billing, to see if anything jumps out at them. They do it for us, I think on an ad hoc basis, because we try and work collaboratively.”400 A federal defender confirmed: “I’ve been contacted on a number of occasions by judges who have received a voucher and want my take on the voucher, and then sometimes my
394 JudgeLuisFelipeRestrepo,3rdCir.,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel2a,Tr.at2. 395 A.J.Kramer,FPD,D.D.C.,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel6,Tr.at33.
396 Id.
397 JudgeJohnGleeson(ret.),E.D.N.Y.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel3,Tr.at20.
398 JudgeKathleenWilliams,S.D.Fla.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel3,Tr.at21.
399 CoriHarbour-Valdez,CJAPanelAtty.,W.D.Tex.&D.N.M.,PublicHearing—SantaFe,NM,Panel 5, Tr. at 25.
400 Mag.JudgeCarolynDelaney,E.D.Cal.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel7,Tr.at12.
No recommendation presented herein represents 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 the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   136   137   138   139   140