Dismissal of judge, defenders from suit on counsel denied
FAYETTEVILLE — A judge has denied motions to dismiss a judge and public defenders from a federal lawsuit over whether criminal defendants should be provided a lawyer at first appearance and bond hearings.
The federal lawsuit filed in July 2022 claims not appointing a lawyer to represent people who can’t afford to hire one in the earliest stages of a criminal case violates their constitutional rights. The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville by Doug Norwood and Alison Lee on behalf of Abigail Farella and Logan Murphy.
The lawsuit argues Farella and Murphy were arrested on felony charges and given bail hearings before Benton County District Judge A. J. Anglin. Both were found to be indigent but didn’t have attorneys appointed to represent them at their bail hearings. Both spent time in jail in lieu of bond.
A defendant who can’t afford a lawyer in a criminal case is deemed indigent; a judge must appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him.
The dispute concerns when the defender must be appointed.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks on Friday denied motions to dismiss from Anglin and state public defenders.
Gregg Parrish, executive director of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, and Jay Saxton, chief public defender for Benton County, argued Brooks should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case because it seeks the same relief as two cases pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Brooks ruled Friday the cases are different enough that abstention isn’t appropriate.
“Both suits ask the presiding court to find indigent defendants possess a right to counsel at bail hearings,” Brooks wrote in his opinion. “However, the differences in parties, sources of law, remedies sought, and alleged facts make it unlikely, although not entirely impossible, that the tribunals will ultimately ad
dress the same issue.”
Brooks noted the pending cases involve state law and different federal provisions than those at issue in this case, which is based only on federal law.
Parrish and Saxton also argued as a result of how initial hearings are handled in Benton County and Anglin’s scheduling practice, the Benton County Public Defender’s Office doesn’t have enough public defenders to staff them. Further, the Benton County Public Defender’s Office cannot provide the relief requested in the lawsuit because the state isn’t a party to the lawsuit. It can’t hire additional state-funded attorneys to staff initial hearings in Anglin’s court without the state Legislature creating and providing money for additional attorney positions, according to the response.
Brooks said in his opinion defendants in the case were sued in their official capacity and are represented by either the Arkansas attorney general’s office or private counsel paid for by Arkansas. Whether the state has money to hire additional public defenders is irrelevant, Brooks wrote.
“It is unclear why Defendants’ presence in this litigation is inadequate to represent the State’s interests,” Brooks wrote.
There were also motions to dismiss the case arguing judges have sovereign immunity from being sued, criminal defendants have no constitutional right to a lawyer at that point in the proceedings and the plaintiffs have failed to state a valid claim.
Brooks said Anglin isn’t entitled to statutory immunity because the lawsuit seeks to stop an allegedly unconstitutional policy and practice — conducting the pretrial release inquiry without the presence of counsel for indigent individuals.
A judge who makes and enforces a rule of an administrative character can be sued for declaratory relief, Brooks said.
“Plaintiffs do not seek to litigate the ‘merits of any underlying lawsuit’ by suing Judge Anglin,” Brooks wrote. “Plaintiffs want legal representation made available to indigent defendants during bail hearings; Judge Anglin contends defendants are just fine without counsel. On this very narrow issue — the timing associated with appointment of counsel — Plaintiffs and Defendant Anglin are adverse.”
Brooks also said there is an argument to be made defendants do have a right to counsel at bond hearings and they have stated what appears to be a valid claim in that respect.
“They contend that the proceeding marks the beginning of prosecution, and because the pretrial detention and bail determinations hold significant consequences for the accused, defense counsel must be present,” Brooks wrote. “Defendant Anglin disputes both contentions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
Brooks noted his ruling doesn’t preclude revisiting the issues in the future should circumstances change.