Page 282 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 282

 238 2 0 1 7
for two-way transportation...but I don’t see any precedence statute for that.”1103 Another defender said that in his district, “we routinely prosecute people who fail to pay child support from across the country. Those folks who aren’t paying child sup- port who don’t have money to pay child support are hauled to the district of South Dakota and automatically typically released on bond.”1104 Recently, the defender office was faced with one such client who could only be released in the district. “Who could he be released to? His daughter who he supposedly had not paid child support to? His daughter had to drive to Sioux Falls, six hours...pick her father up, drive him home, and house him and he was charged with not supporting her.”1105
Courts across the country have struggled with problems like this for decades, to little avail.1106 So by default, the financial burdens of transportation and subsis- tence often fall on defender offices and panel attorneys, who have limited budgets or who will not receive reimbursement for such expenses, to try to keep clients out of unsafe situations while attending court proceedings.
A federal defender told the Committee that he paid for travel and subsistence out of his own pocket because he didn’t want his client to “have to spend a couple weeks of his life bouncing around 20 different county jails to get home and I’m
not going to have him hitchhike. It seems like the only humane thing to do and it seems like there ought to be a better system for helping” those defendants with- out resources to travel between their homes and the court where their charges are pending.1107 Another federal defender described some of the experiences of clients and their counsel in her district:
We had a judge who issued an opinion saying that subsistence was our client staying at the local homeless shelter for a week-long trial. We have a CJA [attorney] who fronted a thousand dollars to put a client up for five nights. I think the judge helped work that out eventually with the CJA. We had a client coming in for a seven-week trial. We were at the point
of saying, we’ll each take him home for a week. Eventually probation
1103 Id.at32–33.
1104 NeilFulton,FPD,D.N.D.&D.S.D.,PublicHearing,Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel2,Tr.,at23. 1105 Id.
1106 See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Gundersen,978F.2d580,584(10thCir.1992);UnitedStatesv.Dyer,
No. 15–CR–115, 2016 WL 7027177, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2016); United States v. Alexander, No. 3:13– CR–146, 2015 WL 1457975, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2015); United States v. Ibarra, 2014 WL 4352063,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014); United States v. Mouzon, No. 1:12–CR–301–04, 2014 WL 1303708, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2014); United States v. Stone, No. 10–20123, 2012 WL 345267, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2012); Mendoza, 734 F. Supp. 2d at 284; United States v. Centeno, No. 09–CR–3120, 2009 WL 3334144, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009); United States v. Headden, No. 09–6406M, 2009 WL 2960382, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 10, 2009); United States v. Birdhorse, No. 2:07–CR–65, 2007 WL 2358634, at *2 (D.N.D. Aug. 17, 2007); United States v. Sandoval, 812 F. Supp. 1156, 1157 (D. Kan. 1993); United States v. James, 762 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991); United States v. Nave, 733 F. Supp. 1002, 1002–03 (D. Md. 1990); United States v. Haley, 504 F. Supp. 1124, 1128–29 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
1107 ThomasPatton,FPD,C.D.Ill.,PublicHearing—Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel2,Tr.,at23.
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.

   280   281   282   283   284