Page 281 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 281

 The Defender Services Office, along with the Office of Legislative Affairs
at the AO, has submitted proposed legislation to Congress in previous years as
part of a courts improvement package. But under Office of General Counsel and Appropriations rules, if a statute already provides monies for a service, another agency or branch cannot provide funds for the same service—and § 4285 does provide money to the Marshals for transportation expenses, however limited. Thus, the proposed legislative change has always been to the statute that governs the Marshals providing costs, rather than a proposal to change the Criminal Justice Act to provide for funding. However, the Department of Justice, which houses and funds the U.S. Marshals Service, has consistently and staunchly opposed such a statutory change, and therefore the proposal has not been adopted.
Even if it could be argued that supplying funding for subsistence and return travel did not violate appropriations rules, the use of CJA funds has been gener-
ally disallowed. It would require statutory change to provide these costs. Currently, Volume 7A of Judiciary Policy prohibits the use of CJA funds for “cost of services of a personal nature and expenses incident thereto.”1097
12.2 Burden of Problem on Defendants and Their Attorneys
Since the time of the Prado Report, courts have seen a significant rise in the number of multi-district criminal cases, requiring an even greater number of non-custodial defendants to appear in court outside of their home districts. But because there has been no statutory fix, as one judge explained, “the gap remains unfilled.”1098 “[W]ith anyone who is from out of the district who has to return for court they will have a problem,”1099 a federal defender told the Committee. “I’ve had some clients who slept overnight in their truck.”1100 Other defendants might find themselves lodged at the YMCA, a halfway house, or worse. As one defender told the Committee, “I can bring them to court, but they’re stranded on the streets after court.”1101
The attempted solutions have been ad hoc at best. One defender testified, “We have taken that out of a fund and taken up a collection. Have done that many, many times.”1102 He told the Committee, “Every now and then I’ll see an order from another district on a Rule 5 case where a judge in another district has allowed
1097 §230.66.20.
1098 UnitedStatesv.Mendoza,734F.Supp.2d287(E.D.N.Y.2010).
1099 ChristineFreeman,Exec.Dir.,CDO,M.D.Ala.,PublicHearing—Birmingham,Ala.,Panel6,Tr.,at 9.
1100 Id.
1101 DorisRandle-Holt,FPD,W.D.Tenn.,PublicHearing—Birmingham,Ala.,Panel6,Tr.,at8. 1102 MichaelDesautels,FPD,D.Vt.,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel10,Tr.,at32.
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 237
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   279   280   281   282   283