Page 195 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 195

 market data;697 in national security cases, interpreters are needed to review discov- ery in foreign languages like Arabic, Pashto and Urdu; and in other cases, “emerging technologies, including location-based tracking techniques such as GPS and cell- site tracking data, frequently require expert review.”698
FPDOs and CDOs typically have investigators on staff and rely upon their services in most of their cases. In fact, in many federal defender offices, “every case is staffed with a staff investigator.”699 Similarly, these offices usually have the funds necessary to secure other expert assistance when needed.
Because panel attorneys must seek judicial approval for service providers and experts, significant disparities exist in some districts between the number of cases in which service providers and experts are used by panel attorneys, as compared to the number of cases in which such services are employed by FDOs and CDOs.
Comparing the work of his office to the panel attorneys in the Northern District of Texas, the Federal Public Defender noted that he “employ[s] ten inves- tigators and paralegals on staff,” without which his colleagues “would find it extremely difficult to represent clients.”700 Yet in fiscal year 2014, panel attorneys in his district sought and secured service providers of any kind in only 4.5 percent of their representations.
Similar disparities exist in other districts. The federal defender in the District of Puerto Rico explained that while he had only twice as many cases as the panel, his office spent ten times as much on expert and professional services. 701
Panel Attorneys’ Usage Rates of Service Providers — U.S. District Courts in North Carolina, FYs 2013 and 2014
Empirical data, which included three national surveys conducted by the Westat research group702of judges, panel representatives and attorneys, public defenders, and resource counsel, plus payment information from the system uti- lized by the AO before eVoucher,703 show a low rate of expert usage by panel attor- neys. Data from the payment system in fiscal years 2011–2014 showed that across
697 Id.
698 Id.
699 LisaFreeland,FPD,W.D.Pa.,PublicHearing—SantaFe,N.M.,Panel3,Tr.,at3.
700 JasonHawkins,FPD,N.D.Tex.,PublicHearing—SantaFe,N.M.,Panel2,Writ.Test.,at6. 701 EricVos,FPD,D.P.R.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel1,Writ.Test.,at5.
702 WestatSurvey.SeeAppendixC:SurveyDataConsidered.
703 Informationdrawnfrom6xpaymentsystemprovidedtotheCommittee.SeeAppendixG.
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 151
 Districts in North Carolina
Average usage FY 2013
Average usage FY 2014
Eastern District
32 percent
40 percent
Middle District
4 percent
1 percent
Western District
2 percent
2 percent
    States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   193   194   195   196   197