Page 144 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 144

 100 2 0 1 7
of the role that I play. They’ve authorized trips to Kabul, Afghanistan to represent Blackwater guards charged with killing Afghan civilians. They’ve authorized trips to Djibouti to represent Somali pirates. They’ve autho- rized trips to Guantanamo Bay. And I’ve had other judges that have not authorized travel trips thirty minutes to the local jail to meet with the client. I guess the point that I’d like to make and will probably emphasize throughout the entire process is just the disparity and the differences and the randomness by which judges approve and don’t approve things.424
The Committee recognizes that travel time can require significant resources, especially in large districts. But in the era of remote detention, voluminous discov- ery, and mandatory minimum sentences, viewing crime scenes and evidence, inter- viewing witnesses, and meeting with clients to prepare their defense or review their discovery are both reasonable and necessary in every representation. All of these necessary activities will require time spent traveling.
The use of technology has greatly increased the volume of discovery in criminal cases. Discovery in a typical multi-defendant drug case, which once consisted of a couple hundred pages of reports, now may consist of those same reports, cell tower data, GPS information, scores of hours of videos from pole cameras, hundreds of hours of audio tapes, texts, emails, social media posts, etc.
Panel attorneys often find judges unwilling to compensate them for the time spent reviewing all of this information. One panel attorney testified, “I have one judge who will tell me point blank if you spend more than two hours in any given day reviewing discovery, it’s excessive.”426 Another panel attorney had a similar experience: “I’ve been told that, ‘You’re not going to get the kind of money you want because it’s just too much money for discovery, ask your client what he did then you’ll find out where to look. Go to the U.S. Attorney’s office and ask them.’”427
The following specific example is telling. In a case involving 41 defendants, in which the attorney’s client potentially faced the death penalty, almost 50,000 pages of discovery, 400 hours of audio and video recordings and hundreds of hours of media files were disclosed to the defense.428 The court found the number of hours spent reviewing documents “unreasonable” because the government had provided 28 pages of “targeted discovery.”429 The court believed that by using this “targeted
424 JamesBroccoletti,CJAPanelAtty.Dist.Rep.,E.D.Va.,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel4, Tr. at 1.
425 Discovery,andspecificallye-discovery,willbediscussedlaterinthereport(seeSection11).
426 JuanMilanes,CJAPanelAtty.,E.D.Va.andD.P.R.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel4,Tr.at28. 427 DavidEisenberg,CJAPanelAtty.Dist.Rep.,D.Ariz.,PublicHearing—SantaFe,NM,Panel6,Tr.at28. 428 MarkWindsor,CJAPanelAtty.,C.D.Cal.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel3,Writ.Test.,at6. 429 Id.
No recommendation presented herein represents 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 the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   142   143   144   145   146