Page 218 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 218

 174 2 0 1 7
and detained in facilities that were a five to seven hour round trip from where the law- yers were located. The federal defender told the Committee, “[Y]ou can imagine the cost for CJA go visit their clients. You figure a seven hour trip at even $100 an hour and time to sit down and visit with a client that’s about $1000 a trip. At thirty counsel, that’s $30,000 for the lawyers to see their clients once.”812
As one panel attorney stated, “Finding ways to house our clients nearer to
us would cut CJA bills dramatically and would help engender more effective rep- resentation.”813 Other solutions that might address the challenges resulting from remote detention also pose their own problems. For example, federal defenders and panel attorneys voiced concern about instituting video conferencing to reduce the need for travel. A district judge explained that in her district, “We have instituted something which I am not sure is successful or not, but our community defender organization...and our probation office have each set up video conferencing abili- ties . . . with at least some of our detention centers.” 814 The judge admitted, however, that while some things could be accomplished by video conference, it was probably not adequate to protect the attorney-client privilege. 815 The judge acknowledged,
“I think it’s a very poor substitute for meeting with the individual and certainly, a number of CJA attorneys have said they can’t build up the trust with their client by meeting with them over video, and I think that’s absolutely right. I don’t have any good solutions for that.”816 A federal defender voiced similar concerns, saying that he was personally opposed to video conferencing, stating, “Maybe at some point in the future that might be a way to help out, but it’s fraught with problems right now, both technological and with personal issues as well...we have so many different facilities that it’s just not really a good option for us.”817
In some districts, federal defenders and U.S. Marshals have worked together to reduce travel and increase the opportunities for attorney-client contact. While this may not be possible in every district, some districts are taking steps to address remote detention, by having the various stakeholders meet to discuss alternatives that could save money and also improve services provided under the CJA.818
Because remote detention is a complicated and multifaceted issue, in 2008 a Remote Detention Ad Hoc Group was created to address these difficulties.819
812 AndreaGeorge,Exec.Dir.,CDO,E.D.Wash.&D.Idaho,PublicHearing—Portland,Or.,Panel6,Tr.,at8. 813 WendyHolton,CJAPanelAtty.,D.Mont.,PublicHearing—Portland,Or.,Panel4,Writ.Test.,at5. 814 JudgeRosannaPeterson,E.D.Wash.,PublicHearing—Portland,Or.,Panel3,Tr.,at21.
815 Id.
816 Id.
817 DavidStickman,FPD,D.Neb.,PublicHearing—Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel2,Tr.,at30.
818 DavidStickman,FPD,D.Neb.,PublicHearing—Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel2,Writ.Test.,at3.
819 ThegroupincludedmembersfromrelevantJudicialConferenceCommittees,courtunitexecutives, and executive branch agencies. Members included: Committee on Judicial Security, Committee on Defender Services, Committee on Criminal Law, Committee on the Budget, The Attorney General’s Federal Detention Trustee, Federal Bureau of Prisons Deputy Assistant Director, USMS Assistant Director for Prisoner Operations, a Chief Probation Officer, a Chief Pretrial Services Officer, a Federal Public Defender, and a Criminal Justice Act Panel Attorney.
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.

   216   217   218   219   220