Solution 1 GMR
Solution 1: Diagnose the Local Appointment Process
Every county makes decisions about appointing counsel differently. To find the right solutions for appointing counsel locally, counties must first look at patterns in their court systems to diagnose potential problems in the process for appointment of counsel at magistration.
Only once a county knows where those failures are happening can it investigate why.
Tracking the appointment process
As the Deason Center’s research in four counties illustrates, tracking the application and appointment process for counsel using court records can reveal not only how many people ultimately receive counsel, but where the appointment process is breaking down.Texas mandates that courts track key moments in the process for appointing counsel. By aggregating those records in the way the Deason Center did for four counties, counties can identify where people are falling out of the process.
| Magistrates must record whether defendants request appointment of counsel. | Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 15.17 (e)(3) |
| Before determining indigency, the court must also request a signed sworn statement that the defendant lacks the means to hire counsel and requests appointment of counsel. | Texas Code of Criminal procedure 26.04 (o) |
| Appointing authorities in the county then determine whether the information on the application entitles the defendant to counsel pursuant to published, local procedures. | Texas Code of Criminal procedure 26.04 (a) |
Investigate the numbers
County data reviews should investigate three numbers.| How many requests for counsel are documented by magistrates? | How many signed requests for counsel appear in the files? | How many applications were granted by appointing authorities? |
Once a county identifies the points at whch people are falling out of the process, it should adopt reforms targeted to those failures.
For more ideas on solutions, see the Deason Center’s other recommendations.
[Figure/caption]: Different patterns point to different potential problems
| What a county see in its data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Few people request counsel | People request counsel but do not submit applications | People apply but are not appointed counsel |
| What a county needs to investigate | ||
| Are people clearly advised of the right to counsel at magistration? Do people understand they might qualify for counsel? Are people discouraged from applying for counsel? |
Is the form to apply for counsel accessible to people who need it? Is the form too complicated to fill out, or demands for documentation excessive? Is there enough assistance to fill out the form? |
Are standards for eligibility for counsel too restrictive? Are applications getting lost? Are applications being rejected for incompleteness? |
Strategies for success
Track requests for counsel, applications for counsel, and appointments of counselLink records of held by jails, magistrates, clerks, coordinators, judges, and defense providers to provide a comprehensive picture
Calculate and compare rates of representation by counsel at magistration, arraignment, and disposition.