GR 9 COVER SHEET

 

Suggested Amendments to

 

general rules; superior court criminal rules; juvenile court rules; criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction

 

NEW Gr 42, CrR 3.1, JuCR 9.2, CrRLJ 3.1

A.   Name of Proponent:

Washington State Bar Association

 

B.   Spokespersons:

Brian Tollefson, President, Washington State Bar Association

 

Travis Stearns, Chair, Council on Public Defense, Washington State Bar Association

 

Bonnie Sterken, Equity and Justice Specialist, Washington State Bar Association

 

C.   Purpose:

The proponent recommends suggested new General Rule (GR) 42^[1], which is intended to bring Washington State into alignment with the ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System (2002) and to ensure the independence of the public defense system from judicial influence and control. 

 

Additionally, these amendments include several suggested technical amendments to CrR 3.1, JuCR 9.2, and CrRLJ 3.1 to reflect the Court’s adoption of the Standards for Indigent Defense (SID).

 

D.   History

For over a year, the Council on Public Defense’s Independence Committee has been charged by the Council on Public Defense with developing a proposal to bring Washington State in line with the first principle of the ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System (2002). The Principles constitute the fundamental criteria necessary to ensure a public defense system provides effective, efficient, high quality, ethical, conflict-free representation.  The first principle states that “[t]he public defense function, including the selection, funding, and payment of defense counsel, is independent.”

 

Washington state’s system of public defense is primarily county-based, unlike the majority of states. The selection, funding, and quality of public defense attorneys and offices varies by county. The independence of each county’s system -- including insulation from political influence and judicial involvement – is critical to ensuring those who are constitutionally or statutorily entitled to public defense counsel receive that which they are due.

 

While drafting the proposal, the Independence Committee worked diligently to gather considerable feedback from public defense directors, members of the judiciary, and practitioners. The proposal before you today for action has gone through multiple revisions in an attempt to be responsive to stakeholder feedback. This feedback included surveys of interested persons and organizations. We received written feedback that we included in our drafting, along with direct contact. We incorporated that feedback into our proposal, to ensure that public defenders maintained their independence while also not ignoring the voice that the judiciary must play in overseeing their courtrooms.

 

E.    Suggested Amendments

The following are summaries and explanations of each suggested amendment:

·         NEW GR 42(a) is intended to establish and codify the purpose behind new GR 42, which is to ensure the independence of public defense services from judicial influence and control.

·         NEW GR 42(b) establishes where this rule will apply

·         NEW GR 42(c) states that judges and judicial staff in superior and limited jurisdiction courts shall not select public defense administrators or the attorneys who provide public defense.

·         NEW GR 42(d) defines manages and oversite, including the terms “manage” and “oversee.”

·         NEW GR 42(e) addresses the assignment of public defense attorneys in individual cases.

·         NEW GR 42(f) defines when it is appropriate for judicial officers to intervene in the assignment and substitution of counsel.

·         Suggested Amendment to CrR 3.19d)(4) reflects that superior courts shall ensure that lawyers assigned to indigent defense matters shall be in compliance with the Supreme Court’s Standards for Indigent Defense.

·         Suggested Amendment to CrRLJ 3.1(d)(4) reflects that superior courts shall ensure that lawyers assigned to indigent defense matters shall be in compliance with the Supreme Court’s Standards for Indigent Defense.

·         Suggested Amendment to JuCR 9.2 reflects that superior courts shall ensure that lawyers assigned to indigent defense matters shall be in compliance with the Supreme Court’s Standards for Indigent Defense.

 

F.    Hearing:

A hearing is not recommended.

G.   Expedited Consideration:

 

Expedited consideration is not requested.

 

H.   Supporting Material:

·         New Suggested General Rule 42: Independence of Public Defense

·         Suggested Amendments to CrRLJ 3.1(d)(4), CrR 3.1(d)(4), JuCR 9.2(d)