SEP 1 3 2017 Clerk of the Court Superior Court of CA Coupt of Santa Clara The Honorable Patricia M. Lucas Deputy*

R1b

Santa Clara County should direct the Public Defender, the Alternate Defender, and the Independent Defense Counsel Offices to: Identify practices in their offices that contribute to delays in disposition of • criminal cases. Educate staff about the about the financial and human impacts of delays on Santa Clara County. Develop more efficient practices without sacrificing their duty to their clients. • Hold staff accountable for adopting those practices. Response 1b: Santa Clara County agrees with the finding. Implementation efforts of this recommendation are underway. The Public Defender, the Alternate Public Defender and the Independent Defense Counsel have been directed to: Review current practices as related to unreasonable delays in case processing. Develop and incorporate educational sessions related to the impact of delayed ٠ court case processing into attorney trainings. Review efficient case processing practices in other jurisdictions for possible implementation in Santa Clara County while ensuring these practices do not impede with a robust and vigorous defense. Develop internal measures as recommended by National Legal Aid and Defense Association (NLADA) as related to case processing. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith August 23, 2017

R1c

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should require the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the Alternate Defender, and the Independent Defense Counsel Offices to provide evidence of changes in practices that will lead to shorter disposition times for felony cases as a prerequisite to authorizing additional resources for these offices. The respondent partially agrees with this finding. A review process for resource Response 1c: requests is already in place. As Santa Clara County continues to work on reducing court case processing times and researching root causes along with possible solutions, it could be discovered that additional resources will be needed to address the problem. In addition, some of these agencies perform functions unrelated to court case processing. For instance, the Public Defender's Office provides assistance to the community regarding criminal record expungement. The District Attorney's Office provides forensic lab testing in a variety of areas. These are valuable functions within Santa Clara County and denying all resource requests for such functions based on delays in criminal case processing could greatly impact service delivery. Progress reports on changes in practices regarding court case processing will be required for all additional resource requests from the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office, the Alternate Defender Office and the Independent Defense Counsel. Each resource requests will be reviewed and decided on a case-by-case basis. Santa Clara County's criminal justice agencies use outdated, legacy computer

R2

agencies' computer systems and databases. The respondent agrees with this finding and partially agrees with this Response: recommendation. Due to some of the current computer systems and databases being in use over the last 40 years, huge amounts of historical data need to be transferred to new more modern solutions. To accomplish this, the County's Information Services Department (ISD) is currently working on designing a data exchange system. Where possible, the Information Services Department will continue to expedite the updating and integration of computer systems and databases. Additionally, Santa Clara County is currently exploring ways to expedite the procurement process which should further assist in the acquisition of new computer systems and databases. Santa Clara County's criminal justice agencies do not have the data management

R3

Santa Clara County should work with the District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, and Independent Defense Counsel to evaluate the data- August 23, 2017 management needs of criminal-justice agencies in order to determine and prioritize training, hiring and technology resources. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding and efforts are already underway within the Information Services Department to implement this recommendation. In 2016 the Information Services Department formed a working group of criminal justice stakeholders which included the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office and the Alternate Defender's Office to look at possible solutions regarding the receiving, sharing and storage of digital evidence. This working group has reviewed several existing technological solutions related to content management and digital evidence storage. The group is currently reviewing which existing technology may best meet the needs of criminal justice stakeholders in Santa Clara County. cs For County of Santa Clara Law Offices of the Public Defender 120 West Mission Street San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-7700 FAX (408) 998-8265 Molly O'Neal Public Defender Adopted: 08/29/2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Miguel Marquez FROM: Molly O'Neal SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report DATE: July 24, 2017 In June, 2017, the Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) of Santa Clara County released a report on trial delay in the County's criminal justice system. The Office of the Public/Alternate Defender (PDO) has responded to the report in several ways, as will be outlined in this memo to the County Executive. Primarily, we have established a framework for examination of trial delay that will inform our own internal data collection and examination of policies and practices that can change going forward. This memo will discuss 1) the Public Defender/Alternate Defender response to the Grand Jury Report; 2) the long-term collaborative efforts that can improve disposition time; and 3) additional thoughts on the report. Preliminarily, it should be noted that defense counsel have an ethical obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the U.S. Constitution as well as the A.B.A. guidelines, and that adherence to those ethical obligations is paramount. That means that all defenses must be explored, any necessary records ordered, any mental health defenses fleshed out, all alibi or other witnesses interviewed, and the client informed about the nature and strength of the Prosecution's case and the possible direct and collateral consequences that may result from the charges. Defense Counsel also have the duty to zealously represent each client, which means that the best negotiated disposition that can be attained must be sought after, and/or a jury trial prepared and presented. Because a person's liberty is at stake, it is not until all of those things are done that a case can be adjudicated. Mindful of the fundamental premise that defense counsel must leave no stone unturned in vigorously representing a criminal defendant, we recognize our obligation to turn those stones Assistant Public Defenders: Jose G. Guzman, Damon Silver, Michele Diederichs Memorandum 8/17/2017 over in an effective and efficient manner. We also recognize the value of reducing delay in the outcome of cases to our clients and to the County and look forward to working with justice partners in addressing the issues presented by the Grand Jury. In response to the findings of the Grand Jury that there are significant delays in our County in the disposition of felony cases as compared to other counties, the following internal practices are being examined to address the overall theme that there is a culture of complacency. External practices are also addressed.