LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

BOARD MEETING

ONE AMERICAN PLACE, BATON ROUGE

JUNE 23, 1995

MINUTES

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Casey, Chair; Dr. Ben Barron; Dorothy Bonsack; Camille Gravel (by proxy); Leah Guerry (by proxy); Rebecca Hudsmith; Robert McLeod (by proxy); Walter M. Sanchez, Vice-Chair; and Henry Walker.

STAFF PRESENT: Jean M. Faria, Chief Executive Officer.

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by the Chair of the Board.

2. Roll Call. The Chair recognized the members of the Board present for the meeting and noted the proxy executed by Robert McLeod and given to Thomas Casey and the proxies executed by Camille Gravel and Leah Guerry and given to Jean Faria. On the basis of these introductions, it was noted that a quorum was present.

3. Welcoming Remarks of the Chair. The Chair welcomed the members of the board and the staff and briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting, explaining its purpose and scope. The Chair then entertained a motion by Mr. Sanchez to approve the minutes of the Board's May 5, 1995 and June 2, 1995 meetings. Dr. Barron seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

4. Schedule for Next Board Meeting. The Chair then moved to set the date of the next Board meeting. After discussion, the Board set August 18, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. as the next meeting date. It will take place in Baton Rouge, at a location to be announced. At the suggestion of the Chair, the meeting schedule for the Board will be set for the remainder of the calendar year at the August 18, 1995 meeting.

5. Consideration of FY 95-96 Budget. The Chair then directed the staff to deliver a briefing on the proposed budget for the upcoming year. The budget, based on the $7.5 million legislative appropriation was reviewed in detail, including administrative expenditures, program expenditures, and the pro bono program and technical assistance program expenditures.

Several questions were directed to the staff concerning the monies reserved for the various programs, with Ms. Hudsmith stating that the demand for expert witness and testing would increase in the new fiscal year. The staff confirmed that the number of grant applications had increased. Additionally, recent applications originated from judicial districts which previously had not applied for monies from the Expert Witness Testing Fund.

The staff noted that the increase in the Capital Program budget was due, in part, to the surge in the number of capital cases. Also, the total number of capital cases had been underestimated at the time the Board set its budget for fiscal year 1994-1995. Approximately $350,000 to $400,000 will be expended on capital appeals already in the system. To date funds have not been encumbered for these capital appeals.

Ms. Hudsmith discussed the possibility of creating a ranking system to more accurately determine which of the capital cases would actually proceed to trial. Such a ranking system may assist the Board in making budgetary decisions in the Capital Program. She suggested that Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Kevin McNally may have such a ranking system and directed the staff to contact Mr. McNally for further information.

The staff then discussed several proposed expenditures from the technical assistance program which provides technical support to all district indigent defender boards. These funds would be used to purchase new computer hardware, upgrade existing computers and provide software for a uniform case tracking system to be used by all indigent defender boards. The uniform case tracking system will be one method for providing uniform and more reliable caseload data. In conjunction with the case tracking system, the staff expressed interest in a data verification study to ensure the reliability of the caseload data.

Continuing legal education, additional capital manuals, and the costs associated with the production of a monthly newsletter would also be paid from this program. The creation of a telephone hotline for attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants charged with first degree murder was proposed. Finally, all costs associated with the annual report would be paid from the technical assistance fund.

The staff indicated that while the certification process was implemented and ongoing in the Appellate Program there were few applicants. The staff emphasized the need to provide appellate advocacy training and to promote the filing of appellate briefs other than "no merit" or Anders briefs. It was generally agreed that the program requires further study and development before it will be fully operational.

Two judicial districts have expressed interest in forming pro bono projects. The staff is currently working with the Baton Rouge Bar Association and 19th Judicial District Public Defenders Office on the development of a capital pro bono panel which would provide a third attorney. This third attorney would work on the trial and be trained as associate counsel. The staff has been asked to participate in the formation of this panel. The members of the private bar in Orleans Parish have made similar inquiries about creating a pro bono panel with LIDB financial assistance.

Mr. Sanchez moved that the proposed budget for FY 95-96 be adopted by the Board. Dr. Barron seconded the motion to adopt the budget, which passed without objection.

6. Review of the District Assistance Fund June Disbursements. With the permission of the Chair, the staff delivered a review of the June Disbursements from the District Assistance Fund. The Board was informed that the sixth judicial district and the eighth judicial district had not yet complied with the formal requirements for the June DAF disbursement. The funds cannot be disbursed until the indigent defender boards meet all formal requirements. Upon compliance with all formal requirements, the disbursements will be made to these two districts.

7. Capital Conflicts and Block Grant Contract Review. The Executive Committee was reconvened by the Chair. At the direction of the Chair, the staff presented a draft of the Grant Agreement to be used with the local indigent defender boards. Ms. Hudsmith questioned the provision of the agreement which allowed for continued funding in a case once it was reduced from first degree murder to any other felony charge. The staff explained its concern that the absence of such a provision would punish attorneys who aggressively defend their clients which results in the reduction of the charge. The staff further noted that attorneys who are thorough and prepared are more likely to be offered a reduced charge. Continued funding of the case after reduction of the charge would promote, rather than discourage, these qualities.

Mr. Sanchez questioned whether the language in paragraph III should read "causes or actions for damages" or "causes of action for damages." In that same paragraph, he asked whether the LIDB should specify that district boards must carry malpractice insurance. The staff explained that some of the district boards do not carry malpractice insurance. After further discussion, Mr. Sanchez moved that the Board grant provisional approval of the Grant Agreement, subject to any changes made by Mr. McLeod. The motion was seconded by Mr. Walker. The motion passed without objection. The Chair adjourned the Executive Committee Meeting.

The changes to the Grant Agreement made by Mr. McLeod are attached as Appendix I.

8. Approval of the Change in the Certification Procedure. The Chair directed the staff to discuss the change in the certification procedure approved by the Executive Committee. The staff explained that the Certification Procedure for the Capital and Appellate Programs required monthly distribution of the lists of certified attorneys. Additionally, several judges had expressed concerns that there were no certified attorneys in their district and that they may need to appoint qualified but uncertified counsel. To meet this need, the staff felt that the Board should have some method for quickly certifying applicants who meet all formal requirements.

Following general questions concerning the procedure used to review the applications Mr. Sanchez moved that the capital and appellate certification procedure be adopted by the Board as proposed by the Committee. Mr. Walker seconded this motion, which passed without opposition.

9. Update on the NLADA Conference. With the permission of the Chair the staff presented an update on the National Legal Aid and Defender Association Annual Conference. NLADA has given tentative approval for three substantive panels to be hosted by the LIDB. The topic of the first panel is recent innovations in the provision of indigent defense services on the state level. A tentative list of panelists includes: Dennis Keefe, director of the Nebraska Public Defenders Office; Andy Hardin, executive director of the Tennessee Public Defender Conference; Philip Tegeler, ACLU attorney in Connecticut and counsel of record in a class action suit against the state and its indigent defender programs; Robert Spangenberg, head of The Spangenberg Group, member of the Massachusetts Indigent Defender Board, and nationally known expert in the field of indigent defense and LIDB CEO, Jean Faria.

The second panel discussion will be organized by the Loyola Federal Post-Conviction Resource Center with the LIDB's assistance. This discussion will focus on the importance of federal post-conviction resource centers and how they can provide services to local attorneys.

The Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center has tentatively agreed to organize a panel discussion with the LIDB's assistance on some topic dealing with the provision of defense services to indigents charged with capital crimes.

The LIDB will be asked to defray some travel and accommodations expenses for each of the out of state panelists.

10. Review of Administrative Expenses. The staff reminded the members of the Board that the fiscal year ended on June 30, 1995 and that all Board-related expense requests should be submitted for approval no later than this date.

11. Legislative Session Review. The staff requested permission to recognize Mr. Bussie, Ms. Guerry, Mr. Casey and Mr. McLeod for their work during the legislative session. The staff also thanked all of the Board members who had contacted their legislators regarding the LIDB and its funding. As a result of the efforts of the Board, several bills, which would have diverted locally generated revenues from local indigent defender boards, were defeated.

12. Adjournment. After completion of business, a motion was made, seconded and adopted to adjourn.