Case: In the Matter of the Review of Issues Concerning Representation of Indigent Defendants in Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Cases

07-00411 | Nevada state trial court

Filed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Nevada became concerned that the provision of indigent defense in the state was deficient and required reform. On April 26, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nevada ordered that an Indigent Defense Commission be created for the purpose of studying issues relating to selection, appointment, compensation, qualifications, performance standards, and caseloads of counsel assigned to represent indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases throughout Nevada. T…

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Nevada became concerned that the provision of indigent defense in the state was deficient and required reform. On April 26, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nevada ordered that an Indigent Defense Commission be created for the purpose of studying issues relating to selection, appointment, compensation, qualifications, performance standards, and caseloads of counsel assigned to represent indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases throughout Nevada. The Nevada Supreme Court designated the Honorable Michael A. Cherry, Associate Judge, as chair of the Commission.

Between May and October 2007, the Commission conducted a statewide survey of indigent defense services. On November 20, 2007, the Commission filed its final report with the Supreme Court of Nevada, making numerous recommendations to promote the independence of the public defender system from the judiciary, establish performance and caseload standards, and ensure consistency of indigent defense in rural counties.

On December 14 and December 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nevada conducted public hearings to consider the Commission's report and to hear public comment on the issues concerning indigent defense.

In an order issued on January 4, 2008, the Supreme Court of Nevada adopted into law the performance standards recommended by the Commission. The Court also established a uniform definition of indigency, required that each judicial district submit for Court approval an administrative plan to promote the independence of the public defender system from the judiciary, created a permanent statewide commission charged with oversight of indigent defense, required all counties to collect uniform data for submission to the commission, and set a September 2008 hearing where the Court would consider the establishment of appropriate caseload standards for Clark and Washoe Counties.

We have no further information on this case.

Summary Authors

Vidhya Reddy (2/3/2008)

People


Judge(s)

Cherry, Michael A. (Nevada)

Douglas, Michael (Nevada)

Gibbons, Mark (Nevada)

Hardesty, James W. (Nevada)

Maupin, A. William (Nevada)

Parraguirre, Ron D. (Nevada)

Saitta, Nancy M. (Nevada)

Judge(s)

Cherry, Michael A. (Nevada)

Douglas, Michael (Nevada)

Gibbons, Mark (Nevada)

Hardesty, James W. (Nevada)

Maupin, A. William (Nevada)

Parraguirre, Ron D. (Nevada)

Saitta, Nancy M. (Nevada)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

07-00411

Final Report and Recommendations of Supreme Court Indigent Defense Commission

Nevada state supreme court

Nov. 20, 2007

Nov. 20, 2007

Order/Opinion

07-00411

Nevada Supreme Court Order Adopting Recommendations of Indigent Defense Commission [Recommended Performance Standards Attached as Exhibit A]

Nevada state supreme court

Jan. 4, 2008

Jan. 4, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 1, 2022, 3:03 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Nevada

Case Type(s):

Indigent Defense

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

No plaintiff; order entered by court as overseer of indigent defense system.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

indigent defense services in Nevada, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Availably Documents:

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Conflict of interest

Funding

Quality of representation

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload