2004-1446-Minutes for Meeting December 06,2004 Recorded 12/20/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL
PI
TES
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS VV 2004-1446
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1212012004 04;55;29 PM
1111111111111111111111111111111
2004-1446
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2004
Deschutes Services Center - Second Floor Conference Room
1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan, Circuit Court Judge; Michael Dugan,
District Attorney; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Director; Mike Maier, County
Administrator; Tom De Wolf, Commissioner; Becky Wanless, Adult Parole &
Probation Director; Bob Smit, KIDS Center; Jacques DeKalb, Defense Attorney;
and Jack Blum, citizen member.
Also in attendance were Les Stiles, Sheriff, Julie Lyche, Commission on Children
& Families; John Maniscalco of the Bend Police Department; Carl Rhodes,
Oregon State Police; Jenny Chocole and Deevy Holcomb, Juvenile Community
Justice; Sandi Baxter, representing Bend Police Department; Ernie Mazorol,
Circuit Court; Kirk Utzinger, Boys & Girls Club; Representative Chuck Burley;
and citizen Andrea Blum. No other citizens or representatives of the media were
present.
1. Call to Order and Introductions.
The meeting was called to order by Tom DeWolf at 3:35 p.m.
2. Approval of the November 1, 2004 Meeting Minutes.
Les Stiles moved approval of the minutes, and Jack Blum seconded; there was
unanimous approval of the minutes as written.
Item #6 was addressed first.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 1 of 8 Pages
3. Discussion of Legislative Issues with Representative Chuck Burley.
Mr. Burley indicated he was attending the meeting to listen and learn.
Mike Dugan pointed out that one upcoming legislative issue will be the use of
deadly force. He emphasized it is a Portland problem, not one in Deschutes
County or the rest of the state. He said the idea of professionals from around
the state is to put together a work group and sufficient protocols so there won't
be a need for legislation. (He distributed a handout at this time, and a brief
discussion followed. A copy is attached as Exhibit B)
The consensus was that it would be wise to be as proactive as possible and not
let Portland set the course.
Tom DeWolf stated that one important issue is Senate Bill 1145. It is
imperative that full funding be given. Becky Wanless and Les Stiles concurred
that past and anticipated future cuts are creating a huge negative impact on their
departments.
Sheriff Stiles added that he is working with representatives of St. Charles
Medical Center regarding secured beds for inmates needing mental health care.
Five rooms are opening in the emergency room, but those won't be ready for 18
months. In lieu of those beds, the Crisis Resolution Center will have fifteen,
with five to be secured. Major issues are developing because of the growth in
the County. Many individuals who are arrested use methamphetamines, and it
takes three days to detoxify them. More funding is needed to deal with this
problem.
Judge Sullivan concurred. He said that he had sentenced two people this very
day that had mental health problems, and all of the others that came before him
had meth addiction problems. The state hospitals were closed so that treatment
could be community based. Now that the counties are on the hook, funding is
being cut and the counties are struggling with the situation. Jail is not the place
for most of these people.
Commissioner DeWolf added that there will be $50 million legislated at the
federal level, but it is not yet appropriated and definitely is not adequate. Of the
total, Deschutes County will see very little.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Scott Johnson stated that historically Deschutes County hasn't been receiving
any of the state indigent dollars that would keep these individuals out of the
hospital and in transition. The argument was that the County didn't have
facilities for this purpose. Soon the County should be able to get some of that
funding. Also, the options of drug court and mental health court need to be
available in addition to treatment options.
Commissioner DeWolf advised the group that there will be regular conference
calls set up with members of the legislature starting in January. The Board will
be coordinating these calls, and department representatives and members of
LPSCC are encouraged to attend. (Once the schedule is established, LPSCC
members will be advised.)
Representative Burley asked if the biggest issue involves methamphetamine.
Judge Sullivan confirmed that is absolutely the biggest problem.
Mike Dugan pointed out that the program putting one of the key meth
ingredients, Sudafed, behind the counter in stores is a big step in the right
direction. This ingredient is used for small labs; these labs cause a huge
environmental problem, and there is no money to clean up the sites. Also, there
is no law in place that disclosure needs to be made to people who buy or rent
residential properties that had housed meth labs in the past, even though this
can result in all kinds of illnesses. There would not be much cost connected to
requiring this disclosure.
Some LPSCC members stated that this won't stop the problem; however, others
felt that anything that can cut down the problem even a little is good. Sheriff
Stiles explained that the small labs aren't the biggest issue; the out of state
manufacturers are, since Deschutes County is in a major trafficking corridor.
Mr. Dugan emphasized that the war on drugs needs to be fought at all levels.
Jack Blum pointed out that getting the public aware and involved is crucial.
Julie Lyche added that all of the components need to come together to make a
difference in the overall problem. There is simply not enough money to address
the issue the way it should be. Judge Sullivan stated that since no treatment is
readily available and there is a 90 -day wait, offenders will commit more crimes
during that period of time. He added that he sentenced a woman to prison today
and recommended the Powder River facility, and she thanked him for saving
her life.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Mike Dugan pointed out that there is a treatment program there, but the
sentence has to be 18 months or longer and the inmate has to serve 12 months
to even be able to get into drug treatment.
Jacques DeKalb added that all models of drug court need a quick response, but
it is not possible, given the current financial environment. Matrixing out
inmates creates a bigger problem. Sheriff Stiles said he is averaging one matrix
out every day. Additionally, the State says that the meth problem and treatment
are important, but when someone is sentenced to jail they lose Oregon Health
Plan benefits, and then have a six month wait to requalify. In the meantime the
inmate can't get treatment under OHP.
Commissioner DeWolf added that the State can override federal provisions as
well. Incarcerated people can lose all kinds of benefits and it takes a long time
to get them back. Then they and their families have no lifeline. Sheriff Stiles
said that if just that one exemption could be put into place, that they won't lose
OHP benefits, they could then use it for badly -needed drug treatment.
Julie Lyche said that the State puts a pittance into juvenile crime prevention,
and seems to cut it first. Jenny Chocole stated that they are looking at working
with the Oregon Youth Authority and the legislature to keep programs and
services local. Part of the rationale is that many of the offenders now are girls,
juveniles using meth and juvenile sex offenders; they often don't do well
without intensive oversight. Many times their parents are involved with illegal
drugs as well. If the juveniles age out, unfortunately they usually end up in
adult jail.
Mr. Burley observed that in the drug war, meth seems to be unique. He feels
the federal government needs to be involved, and they are finally realizing this
is a big national problem. Representative Walden is now involved at the federal
level since the issue includes dealing with toxic waste, children in jeopardy and
much more.
Jacques DeKalb added that meth has traditionally been seen as a problem of the
west, but now it is everywhere. There has been a high-intensity drug traffic
problem in this area for at least five years. During the past couple of years
federal agencies are realizing it is a problem in all areas.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Judge Sullivan asked Mr. Burley that when legislation comes before him, to
consider whether it is flexible for local needs. There is a negative financial
impact if there is no flexibility on how the funds are used. Sheriff Stiles, Mr.
DeKalb and Becky Wanless agreed. Sheriff Stiles added that lack of flexibility
on top of unfunded mandates creates a big problem for local law enforcement
and the courts.
It was decided that Brandon Alexander, a local attorney who handles "fast
track" cases, should be asked to attend the next LPSCC meeting.
4. An Update on Juvenile Community Justice Recidivism Statistics.
Jenny Chocole said that before the Juvenile Justice Summit took place,
comments were made in regard to recidivism rates. Deevy Holcomb put
together some figures for consideration.
At this time Ms. Holcomb provided a handout and gave a brief overview of the
recidivism and referral rates of various counties. (A copy is attached as Exhibit
C.) She explained that a referral is an informal disposition - anything that is
filed. This provides an accurate comparison between the counties. The bar
chart refers to those who are detained.
The information is based on state figures from 1999-2001 that were converted
from another source. The County's rates have always been higher than some
areas. She suggested that perhaps law enforcement has a better handle on the
issue. Metropolitan areas have lower arrest rates, but also have lower per capita
law enforcement per population.
Ms. Chocole added that the figures are up this year, but the general trend is
down. There are differences in practices and in the types of crimes. It is
possible that the restorative justice program has made a positive difference.
5. A Presentation of Parole and Probation's Performance Measures and
Outcomes.
This item was adequately addressed at the previous meeting.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 5 of 8 Pages
6. Discussion of Boys & Girls Club Re-entry Program at Juvenile Justice, and
Its Relationship with Law Enforcement.
This item was addressed first.
Commissioner DeWolf introduced the program. Ms. Chocole said that last year
there was talk about closing the reentry program because of a lack of federal
funding, and she was trying to locate funding to sustain it. On a recent trip to
Pittsburgh she was able to locate federal funding, which the County will match
up to $25,000. This funding should sustain the program for 12 to 18 months.
Kirk Utzinger added that it is hard to measure the outcomes. However, the
bottom line is the program keeps kids out of jail and helps them to reintegrate
into the community. This program greatly reduces recidivism. An additional
$50,000 is being awarded by the National Boys and Girls Club.
Deevy Holcomb stated that recidivism is just one measurement, but an important
one. The statistics look good from all angles. All kids can be involved except
those arrested on Measure 11 crimes or who are being held as adults.
Jack Blum asked if the City of Sisters is involved in the program. Mr. Utzinger
explained that the Club serves all of Central Oregon, but Sisters has its SOAR
program and isn't involved with the Boys & Girls Club. He added that there are
nine other Boys & Girls Clubs around the country with similar programs, but
this has been the longest running and is the model used by the other locations.
In the large metropolitan areas the difference is demonstrated in a big way, and
law enforcement sees the obvious value.
Commissioner DeWolf said that this was set up as a pilot program, but funding
was pulled. This is the first opportunity to produce data, and this data shows
that the program works. However, it is still hard to raise funds. Helping the
good kids is fine, but helping the challenging ones takes marketing. Mr. Blum
stated that he had no idea the Club was located within the Juvenile facility.
Mr. Utzinger said that 1,600 kids in the area participate in the local Boys &
Girls Club; they range in age from 6 to 18. The older ones would be happy to
interact with law enforcement in a positive way. He suggested that law
enforcement personnel visit the facility and perhaps do a little teaching. He
added that most are great kids, but some need a little guidance and a positive
influence.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Judge Sullivan stated that he has seen that when kids interact with law
enforcement, especially at a young age, they see law enforcement people as role
models.
Commissioner DeWolf suggested that a meeting be set up, perhaps in January,
to talk about possible options that don't cost much, such as mentoring, getting
involved in sports and other ideas.
7. Update of National Movement of Accountability Measures.
Due to a conflicting meeting, this item will be addressed at the next meeting.
8. Discussion of Use of Deadly Physical Force.
This item was addressed earlier in the meeting, under item 93.
9. Discussion of LPSCC Membership.
There was not adequate time to address this item.
10. Other Business.
None was offered.
It was decided that the next meeting will be held a week later than usual - on
Monday, January 10, 3:30 p.m., instead of Monday, January 3 - in the Deschutes
Services Building, downstairs conference room.
Items to be addressed on January 10 may include:
• Discussion of Early Disposition "Fast Track" Program — Mike Dugan, Ernie
Mazorol and Brandon Alexander
Update of National Movement of Accountability Measures — Denny Maloney
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Being no further items brought before the group, the meeting adjourned at 5:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Sign -in sheet (1 page)
Document regarding Use of Deadly Force (2 pages)
Deschutes County Boys & Girls Club Targeted Reintegration
Recidivism and Crime Indicator Comparisons (2 pages)
Memo from State of Oregon dated November 22, 2004 regarding
Early Disposition Program Report (4 pages)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 6, 2004
Page 8 of 8 Pages
i,
Z
0
U)
W
Q
W
J
a
le
o
N
1�'
ll
�
to
L
as
=
n
Q
�
�
r
w.
c
a
E
J
U
co
z
u►
a
•�
r
:D
O
rj
V i.:naaavaa � �
Page _� of �_
USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE
The Attorney General's Use of Deadly Force Task Force was created at the request of the
Governor's Leadership Council to make recommendations for possible action. The goal is to be a
proactive approach to the topic. During the 2003 Legislative Session HB 3426 was introduced
and greatly modified during discussions with law enforcement, Department of Justice attorneys,
and district attorneys. The bill was never passed but would have significantly impacted grand
jury, public participation, media relations, and investigation resources.
The Task Force members were asked to survey their respective organizations about the various
policies and procedures employed when a law enforcement officer uses deadly physical force.
Each representative was asked to write a descriptive table of contents statement as a starting point
for writing a "best practices" protocol. The ODAA representatives submitted the following as
our index statement:
District attorneys are the chief criminal legal officers in their respective counties.
Whenever a law enforcement officer uses deadly physical force it is the
responsibility of the district attorney to review the case and make all decisions
regarding the legality or criminality of such act. When death occurs as a result of
the use of deadly physical force, Oregon law provides that the district attorney shall
be responsible for the investigation. The district attorney shall coordinate the lead
investigative agency and will coordinate every aspect of the investigation between
the lead agency and other participating agencies. Each district attorney should
develop a use of deadly physical force protocol for use in their respective county.
Every Oregon County has an independently elected district attorney as provided by the Oregon
Constitution. Art. VII Sec. 17. This constitutional provision provides:
There shall be elected by districts comprised of one, or more counties, a sufficient
number of prosecuting Attorneys, who shall be the law officers of the State, and of
the counties within their respective districts, and shall perform such duties
pertaining to the administration of Law, and general police as the Legislative
Assembly may direct.
I. Major Incident Response Protocol:
It is the purpose of this protocol to:
a. maintain public faith in law enforcement and the justice system;
b. to clarify the roles of different agencies in investigations involving the use of deadly
physical force by law enforcement;
c. assure that investigative facts are promptly and accurately reported to meet the needs
of the public, the justice system and involved agency;
d. standardize the investigation of officer involved incidents involving the use of deadly
physical force by law enforcement
II.. Definitions:
a. "Lethal force incident" means an incident in which a law enforcement officer, in the
line of duty, uses deadly physical force which resulted in death or serious physical injury
to another.
Exhibit
Page _/_ of 2,-
b. "Deadly physical force" is defined in ORS 161.015 (3)
c. "Serious physical injury" is defined in ORS 161.015 (8)
d. "District attorney" means the district attorney or duly appointed deputy district
attorney as designated by the district attorney.
III. Investigation of death incidents:
a. ORS 146.095 provides that the distinct attorney for the county where the death
occurred shall be responsible for the investigation. A death caused by a police officer's
use of deadly physical force is to be considered as one falling under the responsibility of
the district attorney.
b. Law enforcement agencies and the district attorney will enter into an agreed upon
Major Incident Response Protocol for the investigation of these events.
c. The protocol shall include, at a minimum, the following:
1. The district attorney to coordinate with the lead investigative agency;
2. The lead investigative agency shall comply with the Major Incident
Response Protocol;
IV. Grand Jury or any other legal process:
a. The district attorney shall be responsible for determining whether the incident will be
submitted to a grand jury or any other legal process.
b. When an incident is submitted to Grand Jury the procedure of ORS Chapter 132 shall
be followed.
V. Press Relations:
a. press releases shall be coordinated with the district attorney and no press release
should be released without the approval of the district attorney.
VI. Attorney General Involvement:
a. The district attorney, upon determining that the investigative resources of their county
are insufficient to complete the requirements of the Major Incident Response Protocol,
may r.ag%zire aid and assistance from the Attorney General.
�Zs-(kcIF
VI.. Timelines:
a. All Major Incident Response Protocol agreements between the district attorney and
their respective law enforcement agencies within their county shall be completed and
signed by March 31, 2005.
Exhibit
Page 9- of �_
Deschutes Co. Boys and Girls Club Targeted Reintegration Recidivism Comparisons
Data Source: Juvenile Justice Information System
Definitions:
1. Includes all TR youth participants from 10/1/01 to 10/1/03 (131 youth)
2. "Tracked TR Youth" is defined as youth w/ a month or more of both TR in-house and community tracking services (116 youth).
3. "All County Recidivism" describes the annual percent of youth referred to the juvenile department within one year from an initial
referral. Majority of these youth were never detained.
4. "All Detained Youth" describes Deschutes County youth admitted to Deschutes Co. Juvenile Detention 10/01-10/03 (420 youth)
What the data says...
Youth with any level of
participation in Targeted
Reintegration since the
program began were between
20-40 percent less likely to
recidivate within one year when
compared to recidivism among
all youth admitted to detention
from October 2001 to October
2003.
Targeted Reintegration
participants who were tracked
in the community for at least a
month were almost twice as
likely to avoid re -offending
behavior than those who were
only seen by the program in-
house.
Tracked Targeted
Reintegration participants, all
of whom have serious enough
criminal histories to have been
detained, have a lower
recidivism rate than the overall
county average, which includes
a large number of youth with
less serious offense histories.
12 mo. Recidivism - Tracked v. Untracked TR Youth
R
60% x
50%
V40% ■Untracked Youth 10/01-
30% 10/03
■Tracked Youth 10/01-10/03
Z 20%
s 10%
0 w
0%
0
Page 1
BGC 1104 Reauesf Charts
Exhibit C, -
Page of ;—
12 mo. Recidivism - County v. TR Tracked Youth
�a
■All Youth
360%
N
60%
Detained
Z R
50%
10/01-10/03
50%
40%
:'
C
■TR Youth (All)
t Ri 4
,. k3
40%
10/00 - 10/03
■AII County 2002
20%
Recidivism
>°,'
v
30%
a3i
z
o
10%
■TR Tracked 10/1-
3
20%
10/03 Recidivism
L
10%
(Tracked)
3
1
10/00-10/03
>-
0%
e
Page 1
BGC 1104 Reauesf Charts
Exhibit C, -
Page of ;—
12 mo. Recidivism - Detained Youth v. TR Youth
Comparison
70%
■All Youth
360%
�' r4
Detained
Z R
50%
10/01-10/03
3 �°-'
40%
:'
�
■TR Youth (All)
30%
10/00 - 10/03
20%
>°,'
v
o
10%
'
OTR Youth
0%
(Tracked)
1
10/00-10/03
Page 1
BGC 1104 Reauesf Charts
Exhibit C, -
Page of ;—
Selected Juvenile Crime Indicator Comparisons 1998-2002
Data Source: Juvenile Justice Information System and Oregon's Statewide Juvenile Recidivism Report 2004
Definitions:
Recidivism: Annual percent of youth with a new criminal referral within one year of initial referral
Referral Rate: Number of youth per thousand with a referral to a juvenile department
(includes status violations as well as criminal referrals)
Recidivism Comparison Deschutes, Jackson and Douglas
Regional Recidivism Comparison
Counties
75-1
55
�9
220
w.
50
=
45
Deschutes
>
35 -
— S Deschutes
Douglas
50
30
4F
Jackson
d
25„
,
ga
Crook
35
f"
at 4„ n
o.
30
15
25
1998
1999 gOOO 2001 2002
20
44?
ear
Selected Comparison Data LPSCC 11/04
Exhibit
Page _
C� I
l of ;L,
Regional Recidivism Comparison
75-1
�9
220
210
60
n
c
o
55
190
— S Deschutes
w >
50
--W—Jefferson
Deschutes
°' p
150
Al
, - �,;—State
ga
Crook
35
f"
�
o.
30
130
a,a
25
120
20
44?
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
100
Year
Selected Comparison Data LPSCC 11/04
Exhibit
Page _
C� I
l of ;L,
State and County Juvenile Referral Rates
�9
220
210
190
170
,,
Deschutes
°' p
150
Al
, - �,;—State
140
�
`°
130
a,a
I-
120
44?
100
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Selected Comparison Data LPSCC 11/04
Exhibit
Page _
C� I
l of ;L,
F
re on
uFi z
rase Theodore R. Kulongoski, Govemor
Memo
To: LPSCC chairs
From: Becky Eklund, Acting Direct r bV
Date: November 22, 2004
Re: Early Disposition Program Report
Criminal Justice Commission
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 350
Salem, OR 97301-2524
(503)986-6494
FAX (503) 986-4574
I am writing to request information on Early Disposition Programs operating in your
county.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly enacted ORS 135.941 -.949, which requires Local
Public Safety Coordinating Councils to adopt early disposition programs for certain
offenders and directs the Criminal Justice Commission to obtain information on those
programs and report to each .Legislative Assembly.
The Criminal Justice Commission would like to receive this information from you
no later than February 1, 2005, to allow us to compile the information and deliver a
timely report to the Legislature.
Report Information
Information needed for the report consists of:
1. A description of the program(s) established, which includes:
• The number of programs,
• The date each program was implemented (for programs existing prior to
enactment of 2001 SB 133 as well programs created or expanded under SB
133),
• The types of offenses/offenders eligible for each program (please attach a
copy of the eligibility criteria adopted under ORS 135.943), and
• A brief statement of the procedures involved in the program, and how they
differ from previous practice.
2. The number of offenders who were offered participation in each program, the
number who entered each program, and the number who successfully
completed each program. Please include the definition of "successful
completion" and the timeframe used as the basis for this information.
3. The amount of costs avoided or saved by each program. To the extent it is
available, we would appreciate having costs broken out by type (e.g., fewer
• Page 1
Exhibit
Page of
hearings or less grand jury time) and by agency (e.g., prosecution, defense,
courts, police, jail/transport, probation supervision, etc.), and distinguish between
actual savings and avoided costs.
4. A copy of the evaluation criteria and schedule required by ORS 135.943(4),
and any evaluation results. If you do not have formal results but do have
information on estimated or anticipated savings or avoided costs, please
provide that information but clearly label it as an estimate.
Additional Information
The following information would be helpful to receive, but is not required. This
information will help create a centralized resource for jurisdictions interested in
establishing programs and provide information that is more complete for the
legislature.
• _Any comments you have regarding how budget changes since 2003 in
various parts of the criminal justice system in your county have affected
EDPs, such as whether these changes have encouraged or expanded their
use or made it more difficult to establish or operate them.
• Minutes of LPSCC meetings where adoption or implementation of these
programs were discussed.
• Any documents or additional information you think would be useful to other
counties or the legislature regarding processes, issues, or circumstances in
your county that affect adoption or implementation of these programs.
• Names and contact information of key personnel for possible follow-up by
interested parties.
Please remember that drug courts and administrative handling of probation
supervision sanctions also might meet the definition of early disposition programs
and should be included in the report.
EDP Draft Guidelines
In an effort to facilitate the implementation and effectiveness of EDPs and to ensure
the participation of public defense attorneys in EDPs that are consistent with the legal
rights and interests of their clients, the Public Defense Service Commission (PDSC)
is considering the adoption of the enclosed guidelines. However, before adopting
them, the Commission is seeking input from state and local law enforcement
agencies, the courts, local public officials and other stakeholders in Oregon's criminal
justice system. In cooperation with its contractors, the PDSC plans to utilize these
guidelines to assist in the development and operation of effective EDPs, in
partnership with the courts, prosecutors and corrections agencies.
Thank you for your assistance. Please contact Mike Stafford at (503) 986-6491 or
by e-mail at mike.staffordCa_state.or.us if you have questions about this request.
H:\Shared\JCP\LPSCC Memo 1122 04.doc • Page 2 of 3
Exhibit D
Page of
0,
cc: Community Corrections Directors
District Attorneys
Presiding Judges
Robin LaMonte, LFO
Ginger Martin, DOC
Peter Ozanne, OPDS
John Potter, OCDLA
Jean Ann Quinn, OSCA
Mike Stafford, CJC
Attachments
H:\Shared\JCP\LPSCC Memo 1122 04.doc
• Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
Page 3 of
DRAFT
(08/25/04)
The Public Defense Services Commission's Proposed Guidelines
For Participation of Defense Attorneys in Early Disposition Programs
In order to insure that Early Disposition Programs (EDPs) involving court-appointed
attorneys compensated by the Public Defense Services Commission (PDSC) meet
constitutional, statutory and ethical requirements, PDSC concludes that EDPs
should comply with the following guidelines. These guidelines are intended to insure
that clients of court-appointed attorneys who participate in EDPs are able to make
knowing, intelligent, voluntary and attorney -assisted decisions to enter pleas of guilty
and that court-appointed attorneys are able to provide competent counsel to those
clients.
1. An EDP should insure that the program's operations and rules would not interfere
with the establishment and maintenance of attorney/client relationships.
2. An EDP should provide for full discovery, adequate opportunity to review
discovery material and conduct necessary investigations, and adequate time to
investigate the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and any special
conditions or circumstances of the defendant.
3. An EDP should provide for adequate physical space and time to conduct
confidential consultation for as long as reasonably necessary between clients and
their attorneys, preferably in a private location such as an attorney's office.
4. An EDP should provide for adequate time for clients to make knowing, intelligent,
voluntary and attorney -assisted decisions to enter pleas of guilty or enter into
diversion agreements. Clients should be allowed a one-week continuance to make
their decisions in the event there is incomplete information or other compelling
reasons to postpone entry of a plea or entry into a diversion agreement. The court
should also allow the withdrawal of a plea, petition or agreement in an EDP within
one week of its entry in extraordinary circumstances.
5. An EDP should insure that attorney caseloads are sufficiently limited to provide
for full and adequate legal representation of each client.
6. An EDP should provide for alternative representation for a client eligible for an
EDP where such representation would constitute a conflict of interest for the client's
original attorney.
7. An EDP should not penalize clients or sanction their attorneys for acting in
conformity with any of the foregoing standards.
[Note: These guidelines should be accompanied by at least two "model" EDPs —
one from a less populous judicial district and one from a more populous judicial
district — that meet these guidelines.]
Exhibit �p
Page L_ of '_