new mexico
14 Results
-
State Page: New Mexico
-
New Mexico’s independent state commission is a “complete game changer”
Pleading the Sixth: The New Mexico chief public defender recently requested the state legislature for a 21% increase in funding. Ten years ago, the chief public defender was fired a week after telling lawmakers that the system was underfunded. 6AC examines how the creation of an independent oversight commission in…
-
Calm down; the New Mexico Supreme Court did not say flat-fee contracts are always constitutional
Pleading the Sixth: Though press reports are generally touting a recent New Mexico Supreme Court opinion as declaring flat fee contracting to be constitutional, the reality is more nuanced. The 6AC walks the reader through the historical background for the decision and analyzes what the opinion really means. On June…
-
New Mexico becomes 20th state with independent public defense commission
Pleading the Sixth: On April 5, 2013, the Governor of New Mexico signed a public defender commission bill into law signaling the end of the political practices that led to instability in the chief public defender position. Will this day mark the end of undue political interference of the right…
-
New Mexico legislature begins work on public defender commission bill
Pleading the Sixth: On November 6, 2012, the New Mexico electorate passed a constitutional amendment requiring the creation of an independent public defender commission. In anticipation of the next legislative session, the House Committee for the Courts, Corrections and Justice held an initial hearing on November 30th to debate a new commission’s appointing authorities and duties. Despite the constitutional amendment, the road forward still remains unclear. On November 30, 2012, the New Mexico House Committee for the Courts, Corrections, and Justice held an initial hearing on the creation of an independent public defender commission, as required by a constitutional amendment supported by a majority of the New Mexico electorate. [The constitutional amendment was approved by 399,428 of 644,381 (62%) of New Mexico voters on November 6, 2012. For information on the need for a constitutional amendment to ensure the independence of the public defender department, click here.] The discussion during the initial hearing centered on a 2008 bill that took careful aim to meet all pertinent national standards in relation to the independence of the defense function, but was ultimately vetoed by then-Governor Bill Richardson. A significant part of the hearing was spent debating potential hurdles that still await the reform effort to make the public defender department independent. National standards on independence The American Bar Association’s Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System, explicitly requires that the “public defense function, including the selection, funding, and payment of the defense counsel, is independent.” In the commentary to this standard, the American Bar Association (ABA) notes that in addition to public defenders being “subject to judicial supervision only in the same manner and to the same extent as retained counsel” the public defense function should also “be independent from political influence” as well. ABA Principle 1 commentary specifically recommends to “safeguard independence and to promote the efficiency and quality of services, a nonpartisan board should oversee defender, assigned counsel, or contract systems.” Footnotes to ABA Principle 1 refer to National Study Commission on Defense Services’ Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States (1976). The Guidelines were created in consultation with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under a DOJ Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grant. Guideline 2.10 (The Defender Commission) states that a special Defender Commission should be established for every defender system, whether public or private,” and that the primary consideration of appointing authorities should be “ensuring the independence of the Defender Director.” The same National Study Commission (NSC) Guideline states that defender commissions should “consist of from nine to thirteen members,” made up of a “diversity of factions in order to ensure insulation from partisan politics.” Specifically, “[n]o single branch of government should have a majority vote on the commission.” To avoid conflicts of interests the NSC Guidelines require that the “Commission should not include judges, prosecutors, or law enforcement officials.” “The primary function of the Defender Commission should be to select the State Defender Director (Guideline 2.11),” and the commission should not “interfere with the discretion, judgment and zealous advocacy of defender attorneys in specific cases. “ Guideline 2.12 states that the defender director should serve for a term of between 4-6 years and should never be removed from office “without a hearing procedure at which good cause is shown.” What the 2008 commission bill says The 2008 bill discussed by the House committee has a public defender commission consisting of eleven members, with appointments made by a diversity of factions. The Governor will get two appointments, “one of whom shall be a member of an organization that advocates on behalf of persons with mental illness.” The Chief Justice also makes two appointments, “one of whom shall be a member of an organization that advocates on behalf of homeless persons.” The Dean of the University of New Mexico, School of Law gets two appointments. One of the Dean’s appointments must be a member of an organization that “advocates on behalf of an ethnic minority” and another appointment must be from a county with a population less than 120,000 [only 4 of New Mexico’s 33 counties have populations greater than this threshold: Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), Dona Ana County (Las Cruces), San Juan County (Aztec) and Santa Fe County (Santa Fe)]. One appointment made by the president of the State Bar of New Mexico also must be from a county of less than 120,000 people. The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate each get to appoint one member of their respective chambers to the commission. The New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee would each get a single appointment. Importantly, members of the commission must have “significant experience in the defense of criminal or juvenile justice cases,” or have “demonstrated a commitment to quality indigent defense representation or to working with and advocating for the population served by” the public defender department. In addition, the 2008 discussion bill follows national standards by prohibiting current prosecutors, law enforcement officials, judges, and judicial officers (or any employee of any of said officials) from serving on the committee. And, in following national trends, the 2008 bill also bans current public defenders, other employees of the public defender, and “[p]ersons who currently contract with or receive funding from” the public defender department. As proposed, the new commission is mandated to promulgate standards related to: attorney qualification and training, evaluation and supervision of contract and staff attorneys, “ethically responsible caseload and workload levels,” and the parameters of ethical performance. The commission is charged under the 2008 bill with appointing a “chief for a term of four years” and the commission can only terminate the chief for “incompetence, neglect of duty or malfeasance.” And, whereas the Governor currently holds the authority to hire and fire not only the chief but also all public defender department heads, the new discussion bill cedes all authority for hiring and firing of staff to the chief public defender. Potential hurdles moving forward Despite the passage of the constitutional amendment requiring the creation of an independent public defender commission and despite the initial work of the New Mexico legislature at the end of November, there are many hurdles still to come. To begin with, there is no fast track process to get the bill passed. It still needs to have both chambers of the legislature approve it and have the governor sign it. There is no precedent for what happens should the legislature pass the state constitutionally mandated legislation only to have the governor veto it. Should that scenario play out, it will most likely be a matter for the courts to settle.
-
New Mexico voters to decide fate of public defender independence
Pleading the Sixth: Advocates in New Mexico have tried for years to insulate the state public defender from undue political interference with no success. So now the voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to require the legislature to create an independent, statewide public defender commission. Three of…
-
The State of the Nation on Gideon’s 60th Anniversary
Pleading the Sixth: The fear of government unduly taking away one’s liberty led the United States Supreme Court to unanimously declare it an “obvious truth” that no indigent person can be assured a fair trial against the “machinery” of law enforcement without a lawyer. “The right of one charged with…
-
Broken Defense, a seven-part series exposes the depths of the indigent defense crisis in western states
Pleading the Sixth: Last week, Lee Enterprises published a seven-part series exposing the indigent defense crisis in the West. With data finally showing what the 6AC has known for years and has found in nearly every study – thousands of unrepresented defendants going to jail without ever speaking to a…
-
2021 Year in Review
6AC presents this year in review to acknowledge the most significant reforms to how the right to counsel is funded and delivered across the United States. We wish all our readers a happy and healthy 2022! Indigent defense funding The Kansas State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services (BIDS) provides representation…
-
Nevada establishes statewide right to counsel commission
Pleading the Sixth: The Nevada Governor signed into law a bill creating a statewide indigent defense commission. Following the example from Idaho’s recent reforms, the new law funds the commission to hire staff, collect data, evaluate current services, and make legislative recommendations to ensure that the state’s obligations under the 6th…
-
Should non-lawyer judges be sending people to jail? SCOTUS asked to review
Pleading the Sixth: In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment permits non-lawyer judges to impose jail time so long as the defendant has the ability to get a do-over in front of a judge who is a lawyer. Now the Court is asked to clarify whether…
Support Our Work
Criminal justice issues that disproportionately harm poor people, such as wrongful convictions and over-incarceration, cannot be fixed if indigent defendants are given attorneys who do not have the time, resources, or qualifications, to be a constitutional check on government. Yet, investment in improving indigent defense services remains largely neglected. The Sixth Amendment Center is the only nonprofit organization in the country that exclusively examines, uncovers, and helps fix the root of the indigent defense crisis in which inequality is perpetuated because poor defendants do not get a fair fight.
The Sixth Amendment Center is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under EIN: 45-3477185.
Donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable under the law.