Me and Mr. Jones: a systems-based analysis of a catastrophic defense outcome.

AuthorMetzger, Pamela R.
PositionHow Do We 'Do Data' in Public Defense?
  1. INTRODUCTION

    Leo S. Jones spent four months in jail, accused of a probation violation when his probation had long since expired. His incarceration was illegal. It was also preventable.

    In this article, I describe the unique data collection project that identified Mr. Jones's case. Then, I analyze the various individual, institutional, and systemic practices that contributed to Mr. Jones's illegal incarceration. I show how an investigation of Mr. Jones's case led to the discovery of widespread latent errors that may have adversely affected innumerable other detainees. I conclude by explaining what this case reveals about how data collection and analysis can improve public defender practice.

  2. THE KATRINA-GIDEON INTERVIEW PROJECT

    In August of 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall. The Orleans Parish Prison evacuated thousands of pretrial prisoners to jails across the state. In the weeks and months after the storm, New Orleans police arrested thousands more. With the Orleans Parish Prison still closed, these new arrestees joined the languishing Katrina prisoners in remote parish jails and large state prisons. Meanwhile, the Orleans Indigent Defender Board (OIDB) collapsed, leaving thousands of unrepresented "Katrina prisoners" in jails across the state. (1)

    By December of 2006, indigent defendants were represented by a newly funded, client-centered public defender's office (Orleans Public Defenders or OPD). Yet, by conservative estimates, hundreds of "Katrina prisoners" had had cases pending since before the storm made landfall. Most had never met with an attorney. Most of their new attorneys lacked basic case information, such as charging documents and police reports. With new arrests occurring every day, OPD was unable to address this backlog of criminal cases.

    In response to this constitutional crisis, OPD, the Tulane Criminal Law Clinic (the Clinic), and the Student Hurricane Network (SHN) launched the Katrina-Gideon Interview Project (KGIP), an ambitious defender-assistance project. KGIP's primary goal was to interview the pre-Katrina prisoners and to create case files for their assigned public defenders. Secondarily, KGIP sought to assess the legal needs of post-Katrina arrestees who had spent an extended period in jail without counsel or court appearance.

    1. Criminal Justice Stakeholders as Wary "Limited Partners"

      KGIP's viability depended upon two key factors that were beyond OPD's control. First, students needed access to defendants. That access depended on the willingness of the jailers--the Sheriff and the Department of Corrections--to allow hundreds of students to enter the jail to conduct dozens of inmate interviews over a four week period. Second, students needed information about the defendants. Since the old public defender's office lacked any practice of creating and keeping case files, OPD and KGIP were unable to assemble even rudimentary facsimiles of files. (2) KGIP lacked the resources to locate and print publicly available docket information. KGIP was unable to pay for police reports ($25 each) and had no access to any discovery that might have been provided before Katrina. Cooperation with the district attorney's office and the local bar would be essential to KGIP's construction of meaningful case files.

      However, KGIP's interests were not entirely aligned with those of other criminal justice stakeholders. OPD had a different set of priorities than the district attorney, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs Office (the Sheriff) and the Department of Corrections (DOC). And, as the project's director, I had a particularly challenging relationship with some of these stakeholders. I had been a vocal critic of the district attorney's office and had sued the sheriffs office over its failure to comply with judicial orders for prisoner release. I was on better terms with the Department of Corrections--DOC administrators and staff had been extraordinarily helpful in locating "lost" prisoners and identifying prisoners who were detained past the expiration of their sentences. Still, DOC was technically on the "opposite side" of my work as a criminal defense attorney. KGIP's success, therefore, would turn upon our ability to develop cooperative relationships with our institutional adversaries.

      In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Supreme Court had created a Southeast Louisiana Criminal Justice Recovery Task Force. That task force met regularly to explore cooperative possibilities for responding to the post-Katrina criminal justice crisis. After previewing the nascent KGIP concept with the court, I brought the KGIP proposal to the task force. There, I sought--and received--help from the district attorney's office, the Sheriff, and DOC. That cooperation, however, was not easily obtained.

      The Sheriff and DOC had two significant institutional concerns about KGIP. First, by interviewing more than 300 inmates in less than four weeks, KGIP would place extraordinary demands upon local and statewide correctional systems--systems that had already been stretched far beyond their ordinary capacities. Law enforcement would have to prescreen each volunteer. Each jail would have to reserve multiple interview facilities. Correctional staff would have to transport dozens of inmates to and from interview rooms according to a rigorous interview schedule. The interview process might conflict with the facility operations, interrupt inmate activities, or require additional security. The interviews might prove disruptive, "riling" inmates, stirring discontent about interminable post-Katrina delays, or raising worries about loved ones left behind in the storm.

      To minimize KGIP's administrative burdens, we agreed to provide DOC with advance copies of a "KGIP clearance list." That list would include each student's name, date of birth, address, and social security number. DOC would "clear" each volunteer or identify the volunteer as "ineligible" to enter correctional facilities. (Ultimately, only two volunteers were excluded.) In addition, KGIP agreed to a standardized interview schedule: interviews would occur twice daily, at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. KGIP would provide DOC and the Sheriff with a detailed schedule for each day of interviews at each facility. The schedule would include each interviewee's name, each volunteer's name, the proposed time and date of each interview, and a list of any special requirements, such as additional clearance for an interpreter.

      Having resolved these logistics, we still had to address the Sheriff and DOC's public relations and litigation concerns. The Sheriffs failure to timely evacuate the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) had been the subject of widespread negative publicity. As described in the American Civil Liberties Union's 2006 report, Abandoned & Abused:

      [T]housands of men, women, and children were abandoned at OPP. As floodwaters rose in the OPP buildings, power was lost, and entire buildings were plunged into darkness. Deputies left their posts wholesale, leaving behind prisoners in locked cells, some standing in sewage-tainted water up to their chests.... [W]ithout food, water, or ventilation, prisoners broke windows in order to get air and carved holes in the jail's walls in an effort to get to safety. Some prisoners leapt into the water, while others made signs or set fire to bed sheets and pieces of clothing to signal to rescuers. (3) After the prisoners were rescued, the DOC worked with sheriffs around the state to place inmates in any available facility, from local jails to maximum security prisons. Social activists and national media issued widespread criticism of the resulting prison conditions:

      At the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, thousands of OPP evacuees spent several days on a large outdoor field, where prisoner-on-prisoner violence was rampant and went unchecked by correctional officers. From there, prisoners went to other facilities, where some were subjected to systematic abuse and racially motivated assaults by prison guards. (4) Naturally, the Sheriff and DOC were worried that KGIP might generate similarly adverse publicity and provide fuel for lawsuits over prison conditions.

      So, as a condition of access to the prisoners, the Sheriff and DOC required us to limit KGIP's scope: (1) KGIP's sole mission would be to help OPD develop case files for the Katrina prisoners, and (2) KGIP would not assist any inmate in a claim relating to prison conditions. (5) KGIP agreed not to pursue any civil or administrative complaints about jail conditions. KGIP also required each volunteer to sign an agreement prohibiting her from making any public statement about the project. To build trust around these issues, KGIP allowed the Sheriff and DOC to review and approve KGIP's standardized interview template. Finally, each volunteer acknowledged that, upon any breach of these terms, KGIP would report the breaching volunteer to the appropriate disciplinary authority.

      To conduct meaningful interviews and to create useful case files, KGIP needed copies of the most basic documents: arrest warrants, bills of information, police reports, and discovery. However, the public defender's office had not, in the past, retained copies of these documents. Rather, OIPD attorneys gave these court papers to the client; OIDP had no client files and, therefore, had no place to store these legal documents. As a result, the district attorney's office had to duplicate its own work, providing KGIP with copies of police reports and discovery that had already been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT