5 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The Board of Supervisors response to F1.1 stated that the Public Defender's Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
1 stated that the Public Defender's Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment. Recommendation R1. By December 31, 2017, the Board of Supervisors implement a policy to track and collect all assessed fees for the services of the Public Defender and forward total assessed fees and total collected fees to the County Administrator. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. Howeve...
R1
1 By September 1. 2016 the Board of Supervisors conduct a feasibility study to determine if the county can support a Chief Financial Evaluation Officer or designee to vet defendants' ability to pay, and track and collect public defender fees. Agency Response: "This recommendation was implemented by County staff. As stated above, to vet defendants' ability to pay, track and collect public defender fees would be costly and ineffective due to most indigent client's modest income to no means. The ab...
Response: Implemented
Scheduled: within 90 days
Score: 0
"Disagree. Financial information, which includes household income, assets, (real estate, vehicles, money in the bank) and debts, is currently obtained from the majority of defendants in custody, during a Pretrial Services Interview conducted by the Pretrial Services Unit, a branch of the San Joaquin County Probation Department. At that interview, the defendant are told that the information reported will be shared with the court to determine eligibility for pretrial release. A defendant has an incentive to disclose employment and asset information, as those are evidence of stability and support...
F1.1
There are no established policies or procedures to assess indigent defen dants' ability to reimburse the Public Defender's Office for court appointed counsel. Agency Response: "Disagree. There is a policy and procedure to assess fees. In March of 2010, the Department requested, and the Board of Supervisors approved R-10-95, which permitted San Joaquin County courts to assess a registration fee of up to $50 upon appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 987.5(a.) The assessed fee was ...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
stated that the Public Defender's Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment. Recommendation R1. By December 31, 2017, the Board of Supervisors implement a policy to track and collect all assessed fees for the services of the Public Defender and forward total assessed fees and total collected fees to the County Administrator. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However,...
F1.2
There is no communication and oversight among the Public Defender's Office, the County Administrator's office and the Courts for the collection of the fees assessed to the indigent defendants. Agency response: "Disagree. As stated in Response to F1.1 above, the Public Defender's Office established policies and procedures in 2010 to assess and collect fees from indigent defendants, which had also been communicated to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Department intends to resume such pro...
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
"Disagree. As stated in Response to Fl.1 above, the Public Defender's Office established policies and procedures in 2010 to assess and collect fees from indigent defendants, which had also been communicated to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Department intends to resume such procedure by September 1, 2016. In addition, County Administration reached out to other County departments to determine if a coordinated effort between several departments might make a County Evaluator position more effective. In short, the answer is no, primarily due to the differences in eligibility and the De...
F1.3
Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. Agency Response: "Disagree. Financial information, which includes household income, assets, (real estate, vehicles, money in the bank) and debts, is currently obtained from the majority of defendants in custody, during a Pretrial Services Interview conducted by the Pretrial Services Unit, a branch of the San Joaquin County Probation Department. At that interview, the defendant are told that the information...
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
"Disagree. Financial information, which includes household income, assets, (real estate, vehicles, money in the bank) and debts, is currently obtained from the majority of defendants in custody, during a Pretrial Services Interview conducted by the Pretrial Services Unit, a branch of the San Joaquin County Probation Department. At that interview, the defendant are told that the information reported will be shared with the court to determine eligibility for pretrial release. A defendant has an incentive to disclose employment and asset information, as those are evidence of stability and support...