Page 68 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 68

 24 2 0 1 7
defender services program the elements that any modern governmental or business programmatic model would have. A governance structure that has an unconflicted mandate to carry out a clearly defined mission and that can be held accountable for its successes and failures.79
This section addresses the suitability of the judiciary’s governing structures to the task of administering the CJA. The Committee wishes to make it clear that this review is focused on the current structure and function of this governance; not on the individual judges who operate within that structure. Indeed, witnesses who appeared before the Committee made the important distinction between individual judges and the structure under which those judges must operate. As one defender testified:
I feel tremendous support locally from my judges....Our chief judges in both districts really went to bat for us during sequestration, but they were going to bat for us within the judiciary. They were having to do battle within the judiciary about what was going on, as did the chief judges all around the country who very much appreciated the work that we were doing.80
But since federal public defense practice has grown, this structure has created fundamental conflicts between the public defense attorneys and their administrator, the judiciary. A closer examination of the current structure amplifies these conflicts.81
3.2 Current Structure and Governance
The Criminal Justice Act provides the JCUS authority to issue rules governing local plans for the provision of public defense. The current structure also provides the Director of the Administrative Office with authority to create rules and procedures for, and otherwise administer, the Defender Services Program. Thus, the same enti- ties that determine rules, regulations, and policy for public defense also provide administrative support for and advocate on behalf of federal judges.82
3.2.1 Judicial Conference Committees Relevant to the Governance of Defender Services
The JCUS carries out its work primarily through a number of standing commit- tees, several of which interact with, and have authority and influence over, the
79 StevenG.Asin,FormerDeputyAssistantDirector,DSO,AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.Courts, Public Hearing—Philadelphia, Pa., Panel 7, Tr., at 7.
80 DavidPatton,Exec.Dir.,CDO,S.D.N.Y&E.D.N.Y,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel3,Tr.,at 13.
81 Foranoverviewofthebasicstructure,seeSection3.2,CurrentStructureandGovernance,supra. 82 18U.S.C.§3006A(h)(2012).
No recommendation presented herein represents 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.

   66   67   68   69   70