Case: State v. Peart

92-346331 | Louisiana state trial court

Filed Date: 1992

Closed Date: 1993

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1992, Defendant was charged with various criminal offenses and brought a suit in the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, pursuant to state law, for relief to provide constitutionally mandated protections and support. Defendant argues that the public defender system is overburdened adn that each attorney cannot effectively represent each client. Defendant was represented by private firms. The court (Johnson, J.) ordered the case loads of counsel for indigent defendants reduced, as …

In 1992, Defendant was charged with various criminal offenses and brought a suit in the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, pursuant to state law, for relief to provide constitutionally mandated protections and support. Defendant argues that the public defender system is overburdened adn that each attorney cannot effectively represent each client. Defendant was represented by private firms. The court (Johnson, J.) ordered the case loads of counsel for indigent defendants reduced, as well as ordering the legislature to provide funds for additional facilities, attorneys, and staff.

The state appealed and submitted an application of a writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court which granted the application. On July 2, 1993 the Louisiana Supreme Court (Calogero, J.) held that (1) the constitutional requirement that legislature provide uniform system for securing and compensating qualified counsel for indigents was not a right that an individual defendant was entitled to enforce; (2) statutes requiring political subdivisions to fund public defenders did not unconstitutionally burden state's political subdivisions; (3) indigent defendants in section E of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court generally were not provided with effective assistance of counsel; and (4) rebuttable presumption existed that indigents in that section of criminal district court did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the Trial Court's order to the legislature to provide additional funding. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for determination on what relief should be granted. On September 2, 1993 rehearing was denied.

Summary Authors

Dayna Frenkel (2/25/2009)

People


Judge(s)

Calogero, Pascal F. (Louisiana)

Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)

Lemmon, Mary Ann Vial (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Doskey, Dwight M. (Louisiana)

Holdridge, John (Louisiana)

Hyatt, Donald A. (Louisiana)

Teissier, Richard C. (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Connick, Harry F. (Louisiana)

Dalia, David A. (Louisiana)

Hymel, L. J. Jr. (Louisiana)

Judge(s)

Calogero, Pascal F. (Louisiana)

Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)

Lemmon, Mary Ann Vial (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Doskey, Dwight M. (Louisiana)

Holdridge, John (Louisiana)

Hyatt, Donald A. (Louisiana)

Teissier, Richard C. (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Connick, Harry F. (Louisiana)

Dalia, David A. (Louisiana)

Hymel, L. J. Jr. (Louisiana)

Ieyoub, Richard P. (Louisiana)

Pebbles, Jack (Louisiana)

Rutledge, Barbara B. (Louisiana)

Yelverton, Jack (Louisiana)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

State Supreme Court Opinion

Louisiana state supreme court

597 So.2d 1014

April 20, 1992 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Louisiana state supreme court

621 So.2d 780

July 2, 1993 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Louisiana

Case Type(s):

Indigent Defense

Key Dates

Filing Date: 1992

Closing Date: 1993

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Criminal defendant trying to enforce his right to a legislative requirement to a uniform system of securing and compensating qualified counsel for indigent defendants after asserting he was receiving inadequate assisstance.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Louisiana, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Quality of representation

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload