Grant County courts have more defendants than attorneys

Twenty-six people charged, still without legal counsel

EPHRATA — Grant County's embattled public defense system is facing a backlog of accused clients with no legal counsel, a court monitor reportedly too busy to monitor, problems with defense investigations and county officials accused of throwing in the towel.

As an unusually high number of people were charged with criminal offenses in December, a serious problem started arising in Grant County Superior Court.

Judges were declaring people indigent during the final month of the year, qualifying them for a public defender. Red flags were raised in November by the supervisor for Grant County's contracted public defenders, saying all defenders were nearing annual caseload limits.

Grant County and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington had selected Seattle attorney Jeffery Robinson to monitor the county's public defense system and make sure it complies with terms of a 2005 settlement agreement.

Robinson instructed the supervisor, Moses Lake attorney Alan White, to get additional attorneys to cover cases in December.

During the final weeks of 2006, the public defenders reached their caseload limits as predicted. The additional attorneys never arrived and a backlog of clients without attorneys quickly piled up.

"The county was slow in reacting to this need," Robinson wrote in his Jan. 31 report, covering the fourth quarter of 2006. "As a result a number of people (went) unrepresented for a period of time in December."

By Christmas, 48 indigent clients were unrepresented.

Two Wenatchee attorneys eventually took on the cases of 22 of the 48 indigent clients.

The other 26 defendants — all declared indigent by a superior court judge in December — were not provided a public defender until the first week of January, White said.

"This is not ideal. We strive to get somebody who's incarcerated an attorney within a week," the supervisor said of the backlog. "Frequently, we're the only contact the client has with the outside world."

White said clients often want to ask an attorney, right away, how much potential jail time they are facing and how strong the state's case is against them. Public defenders should be available to provide assurances to the accused and answer those initial questions, White said.

There are now 24 clients, declared indigent, without attorneys. Six of them are in Grant County Jail today.

The county contracted with six full-time defenders for work in superior court in 2006. The county budgeted for seven full-time attorneys in superior court for 2007. White said he assigns the full-time defenders 12.5 cases per month, which keeps them within their 150-case limit for the year.

The ACLU and Columbia Legal Services brought a lawsuit against Grant County in April 2004, alleging an inadequate public defense system. The ACLU claimed the county's public defenders were being assigned too many cases and were not provided enough money for defense investigators and expert witnesses.

The lawsuit was settled in November 2005, with the county agreeing to improve the system and meet standards endorsed by the state Bar Association. One standard was limiting the defenders to 150 cases per year.

Because of the caseload limits, White said, the county needs "overflow" attorneys to eliminate the backlog.

"I do not believe that this problem arose as a result of a lack of concern by county officials or intent to violate the settlement agreement," Robinson wrote, adding the backlog is a serious problem. "However, the situation is completely unacceptable and I have informed counsel for the county that it cannot continue."

Grant County Prosecutor John Knodell said the caseload limits for public defenders in superior court are unrealistically low, making the system too expensive.

"We've driven up the cost of justice," Knodell said Wednesday. "We're going to price justice beyond the reach of the taxpayer."

Knodell said the public defenders ought to be able to take on the backlogged cases.

"It appears to me, from the outside, that none of them are working fulltime," the prosecutor said.

Knodell pointed out that some of the public defenders live outside of Grant County, commuting to Ephrata from as far away as Seattle for half-a-week's worth of work.

White said it's hard to get attorneys to work in Grant County because of the "geographic isolation." He said many attorneys want more than a one-year contract, which is all the county offered in 2006 and 2007. All contracts currently end in December.

Robinson said the county expressed an interest in multi-year contracts with defenders, providing job security and continuity for the system. The county also suggested negotiating the 2008 contracts in August, avoiding year-end concerns by defenders about losing their jobs.

Public defender David Kraft said he's seen a clear lack of commitment on the county's part to improve the system.

Kraft, an attorney with 26 years of experience and contracted as a public defender in Grant County in 2006 and 2007, has practiced in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Adams Counties. He ranks Grant County at the bottom of places to work as an attorney. Kraft said Grant County officials neither want to admit problems exist nor implement changes.

"The system is stalled and the county is dragging its feet," Kraft said.

Kraft said the process for resolving cases in Grant County is costing too much time and money. In comparison, he said, defense attorneys and their clients in King County get an offer of settlement from prosecutors shortly after arraignment.

"The system here (in Grant County) is wasteful in terms of a defense attorney's time," Kraft said. "When we don't get any kind of an offer of resolution, early on, we pretty much have to assume the matter is going to go to trial."

Grant County prosecutors "come to us with a plea offer at the last possible moment," Kraft said.

Knodell disagrees.

The prosecutor said public defenders usually get offers from his office at an early stage. Even if they don't, the prosecutor said, it's not creating a more costly process for taxpayers.

"When we get offers to them early, all that essentially does is make life easier for public defenders," Knodell said.

"In the vast majority of cases they get offers prior to the pretrial conference, that's generally when you see these things getting resolved," Knodell said.

Several public defenders expressed concerns about Robinson being too busy to be the monitor, suggesting he needs to be more available for the system to work correctly. They say he can't do the job from Seattle.

Robinson acknowledges the criticisms in his report. He said he plans to discuss his level of monitoring with the defenders, along with lawyers for both the county and ACLU.

Robinson said he visited Ephrata three times in 2006, on Feb. 21, May 23 and Oct. 5. He was unable to return in December due to cases he's working on in Seattle.

Meantime, public defender Jeff Goldstein complained about the county's system for providing defense investigators.

The county contracts with Moses Lake-based Basin Investigations, which has multiple investigators. The county also contracts with a Spokane-based defense investigator.

The county needs to provide additional options and contract with more than two agencies, eliminating conflicts that could cost a client a much-needed investigator, Goldstein said.

Defense investigators have played a significant role in getting charges dismissed against his clients, he said.

In a case with three defendants, he said, a potential conflict of interest allows only two clients to have investigators. Because of such conflicts, investigators are not always available, he said.

"Besides, not enough competition usually breeds laziness and mediocre work," Goldstein said.

Robinson acknowledged several defenders expressed concerns with the quality of investigative services. He also said he understands the complaints of those seeking more options.

Knodell said no such conflict exists. The prosecutor said co-defendants, in the private sector, share investigators all the time.

"When people are paying for their own representation there's incentive to be efficient," Knodell said. "Under this system there is a disincentive to be cost effective. There is every incentive to waste public money under this monstrosity we have here now."

Doug Honig, a spokesman for the ACLU in Seattle, said they're aware of the complaints being raised by public defenders in superior court and contacted Robinson about them.

"We're working with the monitor to get more facts about these complaints," Honig said by phone Tuesday. "If the situation is indeed the way the complaints portray it, that would be troubling, and we will work with the monitor to get them resolved."