Trinity County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Judicial Committee Final Report - Citizen Complaint Indigent Misdemeanor Representation*

Published: April 06, 1999 17 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 5 findings

F1
Section 17 (amended) and section 7 of the current INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT both state, in part: "CONTRACTOR shall maintain a full-time office open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays, in Weaverville, California..." The above stated provision is very important in Trinity County, where many people do not have telephones and must travel substantial distances to conduct business in Weaverville. The Contractor is, and has been, in violation of this provision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel take immediate steps to enforce sections 17 (amended) and 7 of the INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT.
F2
One of the major selling points of the current Contractor in bidding for the INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT was the criminal law experience of the attorney to be appointed to Trinity County. Two months after the awarding of the contract, this attorney left Trinity County. The replacement attorney appointed by the Contractor does not meet the experience requirements as set forth in Section 2 of the AMENDMENT TO INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT, signed on April 20, 1999. Specifically, this refers to the statement in the Contractors' proposal that states: The Contractor "would provide one (1) full-time attorney with a minimum of three (3) years' professional experience, primarily in the area of criminal law". (PLEASE NOTE: The Grand Jury is not making any evaluation or statement regarding the job performance of the current or past indigent misdemeanor attorneys.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel take steps to enforce the experience requirements section of the INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT or renegotiate the contract.
F3
Section (N) of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING dated July 1, 1998, by and between the Trinity County Superior Court Judges, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, the Trinity County Clerk, the Trinity County Auditor, the Trinity County Administrative Officer, and the Trinity County Marshal, states, in part: "Both judges shall participate in the evaluation of the professional qualifications of public defender applicants and in any interview process that is utilized by the County."
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
In the future, section (N) of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING should be followed.
F4
There were some disputes and some confusion during the bid proposal and selection process for the INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The issue of providing a well-defined scope of work on Requests for Proposals has been implemented. We have and will continue to seek input from the local judges . I would not think it appropriate to seek input from all the local legal community. It is the County's responsibility to define, advertise for, select, and pay for the provision of indigent legal defense for residents of the County who need it.
F5
I agree that the large number of contracts that the County has at any given time and the system that has been used for maintaining the contracts makes it difficult at times to obtain information pertaining to the contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
A centralized file should be created that lists all current county contracts, amendments to contracts, and the location at which the contracts are filed. This file should be organized in such a manner that requests to the county for copies of contracts can be met on a timely basis and copies of the contract, with all amendments attached, provided. CONCLUSION: Several allegations in the citizen's complaint were found to be factual and merit corrective action by the County. During the bid proposal selection process for the current INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND CONFLICT CONTRACT, one of the local judges and many other members of the local legal community expressed concerns to the Board of Supervisors about signing a contract with a legal corporation (which then hires a subcontracted attorney), versus an individual attorney. The Grand Jury recommends to the Board of Supervisors that in the bid selection process for future indigent representation contracts these concerns be addressed. 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Board of Supervisors, Trinity County Superior Court Judges, Trinity County Administrative Officer, Trinity County Counsel, Trinity County Auditor, Trinity County District Attorney. ubinily count RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Administration — Human Resources — Risk Management Grant Management — Information & Technology JIII 27 E. J. P. O. Box 1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 County Administrator Phone: (530) 623-1382 SUPERIOR COURT Human Resources Phone (530) 623-1325 FAX (530) 623-4222 JUDUZ'S CHAMBART JEANNIE NIX-TEMPLE, County Administrative Officer July 26, 2000 The Honorable John K. Letton, Presiding Judge Superior Court RE: Response to 1999-2000 Trinity County Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report--Citizen Complaint, Indigent Misdemeanor Representation Dear Judge Letton: The Grand Jury has requested that I respond as the County Administrative Officer to their

Conclusions 2

No Responses Found 4

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Superior Court of California, County of Trinity Court
Trinity County Auditor-Controller Elected County Office
Trinity County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Trinity County District Attorney Elected County Office

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.