Page 295 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 295

   14.3 Re-elevating DSO to a Directorate in the AO
While this model was suggested, the Committee doesn’t believe that it would resolve any of the issues that currently plague the CJA. Re-elevating DSO would not address the inherent conflicts of interest outlined in this report. No matter where DSO is located within the AO, the CJA budget will still be competing for resources with the judiciary; it will still be determined by JCUS committees without any defender input; and it will continue to be brought to appropriators in Congress without any defender ability to answer questions, explain the program, or advocate for the funds necessary to fulfill the program’s mission.
The placement of the CJA program within the judiciary is fundamentally flawed, something that Congress acknowledged at the time of the creation of the CJA and assumed would be addressed at some later date. That time is now long-past due.
14.4 Defender Commission Comprised Entirely of Judges
As mentioned above, all members of the Committee, with one exception, agreed on the above mechanism for nominating and confirming Commissioners. The excep- tion, Professor Kerr, believes that the commission should consist entirely of fed- eral district court judges selected by the judges of each circuit. His view is set out
in a separate statement.1124 The proposal to have only judges lead the new federal defense agency is based on Professor Kerr’s assumption that judicial commissioners would insulate a new agency from any political pressure or control.
But such a model underestimates the bipartisan support the federal defender program historically has had from Congress. Many federal defender offices would have been even more compromised if not for the assistance and support provided from both sides of the aisle in Congress during sequestration.1125 Certainly the con- cept of being “tough on crime” raises the specter that a commission dedicated to the defense of individuals accused of crime might be subject to additional scrutiny. However, this is not about being “tough on crime,” it is about providing the repre- sentation guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to those individuals who have been accused of a crime. And, as documented in this report, Congress has histori- cally understood that distinction.
The current defense services budget is visible to potential political opponents
1124 SeeAppendixM:StatementfromCommitteeMemberProfessorOrinKerr. 1125 PleaseseeSection3.2.
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 251
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   293   294   295   296   297