(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual report"

1ENTS DEPARTMENT 



CLOSED nn 
STA6KS |Hj 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

FORMATION CENTER 
S '' BRARY ' 

Not to be taken from the Library 



JUL 3 1992 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 90187 9404 



i 

it. 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1987-1988 FISCAL YEAR 



ANNUAL REPORT 



DOCUMENTS DEET, 

- 198J3 

SAN FRANOiSCO 

•'••UIJC I.IKKARV 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction 1 

I . Jurisdiction 5 

II. Office Structure, Staff, Budget, 

and Workload 7 

III . Executive Officers 14 

IV. Administration 16 

V. Felony Unit 18 

VI . Misdemeanor Unit 25 

VII . Juvenile Unit 28 

VIII . Mental Health Unit 36 

IX . Research Unit 40 

X. Investigation Unit 42 

XI . Other Matters of Interest 44 



-l- 



TABLES Page 

Table A - Cost Breakdown 9 

Table B - Comparative Budgets 1978 - 1988 11 

Table C - Program Costs 12 

Table D - Recent Caseloads 13 

Table E - Caseloads 1978 - 1988 13 

Table F - Public Defender Felony Cases 20 

Table G - State Prison Commitments 22 

Table H - Misdemeanor Unit Cases 26 

Table I - Misdemeanor Jury Activity 27 

Table J - Misdemeanor Unit - Fiscal Year Comparisons 28 

Table K - Juvenile Statistics - Fiscal Year 

Comparisons 31 

Table L - Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filings 32 

Table M - Summary of Mental Health Unit's Work 38 

Table N - Conflict Cases - Costs and Number 45 

Table - Narcotic Arrests, Felony Arrests, 

Narcotic and Felony Rebookings 46 

APPENDIX 

A - Workload and Activity of Municipal 

and Superior Courts 51 



-ii- 



INTRODUCTION 

This Annual Report is a statement of the work of the 
Public Defender's Office. It is a description of the 
jurisdiction of the office and a record of the 
expenditures, programs, program costs, and performance 
objectives for this department of city government. 

The Public Defender represents people charged with 
crimes who do not have money to hire their own lawyers. 
Twenty thousand such people are represented every year. 
To carry out that responsibility, the Public Defender has 
a staff of 66 lawyers and 36 support personnel. 

The Public Defender is responsible for seeing that 
each client is fully and competently represented. This 
requires the Public Defender to provide each client with a 
defense that works to the maximum legal advantage of that 
client. Whatever the Public Defender's status as a public 
officer, the Public Defender's primary duty and loyalty is 
to the client, no matter how grievous the charges and no 
matter how strong the evidence against that person. 

The San Francisco Public Defender is elected: one of 
the few in this country. With that status comes certain 
responsibilities. First, as an elected official, the 
Public Defender is accountable to the public in terms of 
the quality of his administration. The public has a right 
to know the level of expertise, the nature of the 



Public Defender's hiring, the efficiency of the office, 
the level of integrity, and honesty. 

Second, as an elected official, the Public Defender 
has the duty to articulate the concerns he has about the 
overall quality of justice within the system. The elected 
Public Defender has a duty to be more than a passive 
player within the system. He must speak up as injustices 
occur- -either in the working of the judicial system or in 
the legislative process. In that sense, the Public 
Defender must be a leader of public opinion. 

Third, the elected Public Defender has a duty to 
protect the indigent defense system against negative 
public opinion or politically-motivated action. The 
Public Defender must never succumb to the temptation to 
put the interests of public opinion, or his own 
popularity, over the interests of the client. 

Throughout this detailed report, we hope the reader 
keeps in mind the principal concern of this department: 
that every client receive the highest quality of 
representation. The task of every employee, whether 
department head or telephone operator, is to ask this 
question — "is there anything more, within reason, we could 
do for the man or woman who uses our services?" 

The task of representing clients in this office 
involves much more than preparing a case and going to 
court. The task involves a delivery system where 

CS2152/10.88 -2 - 



coordination and management are critical . There are 102 
employees, and the proper and efficient distribution of 
work assignments for each person is essential . In order 
to meet the demand of effectively representing each 
client's case, an administrative structure exists within 
which workload is distributed and work performance is 
closely supervised. A series of goals and objectives has 
been developed for the organization of the office. The 
goals address all activities of the office, and the 
objectives relate to all areas of supervision and 
management . 

Each goal is a broad, organizing principle for action 
and for reflection about the work and about the conduct of 
the office. Each objective is a specific target which is 
measured four times a year. 

The objectives have two functions: 

1. To insure that the day-to-day work of each 
section of the office is being done (output 
objective) 

2. To improve the quality of that work (performance 
improvement objective) 

An example of a goal would be: "To insure the highest 
quality of representation." An example of an objective 
would be: "To handle 2,000 felony cases this year" 



cs2152/10.88 -3 - 



(output) or "to reduce state prison sentence" (performance 
improvement ) . 

This Annual Report will be divided into discussion of 
each of the programs. The Report will describe the 
program costs, program objectives, and will explain how 
each of the objectives is measured. As a result, the 
reader will see the successes and shortcomings of the 
department. We also make specific recommendations for 
change . 

OVERALL OFFICE GOALS 
The overall goals of the office are: 

1. To insure that each defendant receives competent 
and zealous representation 

2. To maintain the highest professional and ethical 
standards on the part of each employee of the 
department 

3. To insure that the delivery of legal services be 
as economical as possible without sacrificing the 
quality of those services 

4. To maintain public respect for the public 
defender and the criminal justice system 

Everything that is done in the Public Defender's 
Office is designed to bring about these goals. Every 
objective is a restatement of practical ways to achieve 
these goals. 

CS2152/10.88 -4 - 



I. JURISDICTION 

Section 33 of the Charter: 

[The Public Defender] shall 
immediately, upon the request of a 
defendant who is financially unable 
to employ counsel, or upon order of 
the court, defend or give advice to a 
person charged with the commission of 
a crime. 

The Public Defender is a creature of the Charter of 
the City and County of San Francisco. The Charter 
provides that the Public Defender will represent persons 
who have been charged with criminal offenses and who are 
without funds to pay for a privately-retained lawyer..!/ 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the 
Charter, the California Government Code also authorizes 
counties, such as San Francisco, to establish public 
defender offices. 2/ The Government Code sets forth the 
types of cases which can be handled by a County Public 
Defender. These include: 3/ 

( 1 ) Criminal cases upon request of the 
defendant or by appointment of the 
court; 

(2) Contempt cases; 

(3) Appeals; 



1/ Charter Section 33 

2/ Government Code Section 27706 

1/ Ibid. 



cs2152/10.88 -5 - 



(4) Actions for the collection of 
wages or other demands against a 
person for under one hundred 
dollars; 

(5) Defense of individuals in civil 
litigation where a person is being 
harassed or persecuted; 

( 6 ) Cases involving mental health 
guardianships and conservator- 
ships; 4 ./ 

(7) Juvenile cases. 

The Welfare and Institutions Code also provides for 
the appointment of attorneys for indigent parents whose 
custody rights to their children are being subjected to 
proceedings for suspension or for termination of those 
rights. 5/ 

The law, thus, provides for public defender 
representation in a wide spectrum of activities. Although 
the great bulk of the office's activities are in the 
criminal courts, the office is also quite active in 
representing persons in mental health and in juvenile 
cases. 



4/ probate Code Section 1471 also provides for public 
defender appointment in probate guardianships under 
specified conditions. 

5/ Sections 634 and 317 of the Welfare and Institutions 
Code. On August 1, 1988, the Public Defender discontinued 
representation in cases of parental rights. The reason 
for this action was the cut in funding and loss of 
budgeted attorney positions. 



cs2152/10.88 -6 - 



II. OFFICE STRUCTURE, STAFF, BUDGET, AND WORKLOAD 
1. Office Structure 

The executive officer of the Public Defender's Office 
is the Public Defender. The Public Defender is elected 
every four years. The Public Defender appoints all Deputy 
Public Defenders and a Confidential Secretary. §./ These 
employees serve at the pleasure of the Public Defender. 
The balance of the staff, which includes investigators, 
secretarial, and other support personnel, are selected 
through Civil Service rules. 

The Chief Attorney is the second executive officer of 
the department. The Chief Attorney is the person to whom 
all other supervisors directly report. The Chief Attorney 
is Acting Public Defender should the former leave the 
state. 

There are seven administrative units in the Public 
Defender's Office. Six of these seven relate directly to 
legal representation and are under the direction of 
supervising attorneys. These include: 

(1) Misdemeanor Unit : 17 attorneys in 
6 Municipal Courts. 

(2) Felony Unit : 34 attorneys in both 
the Municipal Court ( Felony 
Division) and in the Superior 
Court . 

(3) Mental Health Unit : 3 attorneys, 
2 investigators. 



§./ Charter Section 3.47 



CS2152/10.88 -7 - 



(4) Juvenile Unit : 7 attorneys, 1 
investigator, 2 social workers, 3 
clerical-secretarial personnel. 

(5) Research Unit : 2 attorneys and 1 
paralegal. 

(6) Investigative Unit : 1 head 
attorney as supervisor, 9 
investigators, 3 clerks. 

(7) Administrative Unit : 1 executive 
assistant, 1 accounts coordinator, 
15 clerical personnel. 



2. Staff 

A breakdown of the Office by class and job title is 

Attorneys 66 

Investigators 12 

Executive Assistant 1 

Fiscal/Budget Coordinator 1 

Legal Sec. I 3 

Secretary I 2 

Junior Clerk 1 

Clerk Typist 1 

Senior Clerk Typist 2 

Telephone Operator 2 

Senior Legal Process Clerk 2 

Legal Process Clerk 6 

Legal Assistant 1 

Court Alternative Specialist I __2 

102 



cs2152/10.88 -8 - 



TABLE A 
Cost Breakdown 

( 87-88 ) ( 88-89 ) 

Salaries $5,124,437.00 $4,951,444.00 

Fringes 1,228,217.00 1,219,120.00 

Salaries and Fringes Subtotal $6,352,654.00 $6,170,564.00 

Expert Witness 143,700.00 143,700.00 

Professional Services 15,000.00 6,000.00 

Contracted Services 45,000.00 45,000.00 

Travel 600.00 

Other Services 6,000.00 6,000.00 

Telephone 75,400.00 75,400.00 

Material and Supplies 20,218.00 30,000.00 

Membership Dues 200.00 200.00 

Rental of Property 445,800.00 485,136.00 

Equipment Purchase 4,000.00 6,000.00 

Police Dept. (use of Wang Word Proc. ) 118,223.00 128,527.00 

Electricity 70,230.00 17,220.00 

Central Shop 15,000.00 15,000.00 

Management Training 610.00 610.00 

Juvenile Court 16,788.00 16,788.00 

Reproduction 2,500.00 3,000.00 

Other Costs 4,563.00 26,361.00 

Subtotal $ 983,332.00 $1,004,942.00 

Total Costs - $7,335,986.00 $7,175,506.00 



cs2152/10.88 -9 - 



3. Budget 

Table B sets forth the rise in the Public Defender 
budgets from FY 78-79 to the present. Before FY 82-83, a 
large portion of the salary costs for personnel was borne 
by federal programs. With the federal government's 
elimination of the Comprehensive Emergency Training Act 
(CETA) and with the further federal cutback of Title II 
Community Development money, the City and County virtually 
absorbed the cost of Public Defender's Office, causing a 
rise in the City's portion of this budget. Since FY 
82-83, the rise has reflected only those cost increases 
mandated by the city charter. In FY 86-87, our costs took 
a sharp rise due to charter-mandated costs and to the cost 
of renting new premises. During FY 87-88, the office 
sustained a decrease in its budget of 2.1%. This decrease 
was largely due to the elimination of three attorney 
positions. 



cs2152/10.88 -10- 







TABLE 


B 










Comparative Budgets 1978-88 






Year 


Ad Valorem 


C-.E.T.A. 




Title II 
( Community 
Development) 


A.B. 90 


Total 


78-79 


2,201,463 


Not avail. 






66,000 


Not avail 


80-81 


2,207,211 


528,892 




162,076 


73,739 


2,971,918 


81-82 


2,938,032 


416,125 




206,573 


52,751 


3,613,481 


82-83 


4,415,465 








71,000 


4,486,465 


83-84 


5,026,091 








73,000 


5,099,091 


84-85 


5,896,139 








83,803 


5,979,942 


85-86 


6,513,822 








91,403 


6,605,225 


86-87 


6,536,937 








91,403 


6,628,340 


87-88 


7,246,583 








91,403 


7,337,986 


88-89 


7,093,703 








91,403 


7,185,106 



CS2152/10.88 



-11- 



4. Program Costs 

Table C represents a salary cost for each program or 
each administrative unit within the Public Defender's 
Office. 

TABLE C 

Public Defender, Chief Attorney, and Administration 

$ 285,516.00 

456,633.00 

$ 742,149.00 

Felony $2,323,377.00 

Misdemeanor 1,081,065.00 

Mental Health 387,949.00 

Juvenile 712,103.00 

Research 224,799.00 

Investigation 699, 122.00 

Total $6,170,564.00 



cs2152/10.88 -12- 



5. Summary of Caseload 









TABLE D 














Recent 


Caseloads 












83-84 


84-85 


85-86 


86-87 


87-88 


Felonies 
















Superior Court 
Municipal Court 

Less cases held 
answer or certif: 

r 


to 
Led 
rOTAL 


1,493 
4,152 
5,645 
1,434 

4,211 


1,338 
4,256 
5,594 
1,073 

4,521 


1,540 
4,649 
6,189 
1,304 

4,885 


1,576 
4,977 
6,553 
1,388 

5,165 


2,114 
5,660 
7,774 
2,041 

5,733 


Misdemeanor 






7,777 


9,158 


10,630 


9,963 


8,953 


Juvenile Cases 
















Juveniles 
Adults 

TOTAL 


2,211 

395 

2,606 


2,010 

522 

2,532 


1,927 

869 

2,796 


2,054 

825 

2,879 


2,501 

806 

3,307 


Mental Health 






4,052 


4,100 


3,546 


5,242 


5,082 


6. Comparison 


of 


Caseload 











The following is a breakdown of the Public Defender 
caseload for a nine-year period. 









TABLE E 










Caseloads 


1978 - 1988 






Year 


Felony 


Misdemeanor 


Mental Health 


Juvenile 


Total 


78-79 


5,329 


12,855 




2,601 


2,040 


22,825 


79-80 


5,346 


9,654 




1,470 


2,895 


19,365 


80-81 


5,450 


10,431 




1,381 


2,418 


19,680 


81-82 


5,963 


11,762 




1,054 


2,598 


21,377 


82-83 


5,769 


9,593 




3,080 


2,626 


21,068 


83-84 


4,211 


7,569 




4,052 


2,606 


18,438 


84-85 


4,521 


9,158 




4,100 


2,532 


20,311 


85-86 


4,885 


10,630 




3,546 


2,796 


21,857 


86-87 


5,165 


9,963 




5,242 


2,879 


23,249 


87-88 


5,736 


8,953 




5,082 


3,307 


22,975 



CS2152/10.88 



-13- 



III. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS - PUBLIC DEFENDER 
AND CHIEF ASSISTANT 

Program Cost : $285,516 

Program Goals : 

1. To provide overall leadership 

2. To supervise the expenditure of money and use of 
resources 

3. To supervise the Head Attorneys in their 
management of attorneys and caseloads 

4. To develop policies and procedures 

5. To make appointments for discretionary and civil 
service position 

6. To evaluate the implementation of all office 
policies and duties 

7. To maintain contacts with other city and state 
agencies that affect the work of the Public 
Defender 

8. To provide public education about the work of 
the Public Defender and the work of the criminal 
justice system 

9. To insure a high ethical standard in the 
performance of Public Defender duties 

With the elected official, who is the Public 
Defender, the "buck stops here." The ultimate 
responsibility for the entire operation is upon the person 

cs2152/10.88 -14- 



of the Public Defender. As such, the Public Defender must 
clearly define the duties and the goals of the department 
and see that these are carried out. 

The Chief Attorney is the chief executive officer 
who assists the Public Defender in the development of 
policies and procedures. In addition, the Chief Attorney 
has direct responsibility for the execution of those 
policies and proceedings. The Chief Attorney is the link 
between policy making and the line work of the office. 

A major part of the Public Defender's function is to 
lobby the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for the 
budgetary needs of the office. The Public Defender must 
develop the office budget and must work to see that the 
budget is approved. 

The Public Defender also must educate the public at 
large about the function of the defense attorney in the 
criminal justice system. A large amount of the Public 
Defender's time is spent answering inquiries about 
critical issues which affect the criminal justice system. 
It is an understatement to say that those issues, whether 
they relate to drunk driving, or to child abuse, or to the 
decisions of the California Supreme Court, are matters of 
passionate debate. 

The Public Defender must have the courage to enter 
that public debate and must provide an informed view, no 

CS2152/10.88 -15- 



matter how unpopular that view may be. As the National 

Legal Aid and Defender Commentary to Standard 3.5 put it: 

. . . (the director of a defense 
system) has a duty in terms of public 
education which, if he fulfills it, 
will need to give him the kind of 
support that can be expected to arise 
out of the more decent instincts of 
citizens of a society dedicated to 
democracy and fair play. If he will 
approach the community, not as an 
apologist for his performance, but as 
an interpreter and reinterpreter of 
free society's own mandates concerning 
its constitutional guarantees; if he 
will approach this giant jury with 
the same skill that it is hoped that 
he approaches a petit jury, he will 
not only give strength to the 
foundations and structure of his own 
office but will do much to enhance 
that of the judicial process as a 
whole. 

IV. ADMINISTRATION 

Program Cost : $456,633 
Program Goals : 

1. To provide clerical, secretarial services for the 
office 

2. To provide data collection 

3. To prepare payroll and process the expenditures 
for office 

The Administrative Unit is managed by Sharon 
Christensen, the Executive Assistant. The unit consists 
of five components: 



CS2152/10.88 -16- 



1. Word Processing (2 legal secretaries, 3 senior 
clerk typists) 

2. Senior Legal Process Clerks (2 persons) 

3. Legal Process Clerks (6 persons) 

4. Accountant (1 person) 

5. Reception Area Workers (2 telephone operators) 
The work of these support personnel is critical to 

the operation of the Public Defender's Office. Without 
them, the lawyers could not function. Just as important, 
the Administrative Unit personnel provide an environment 
for the clientele and the public. If phones are answered, 
if documents are produced in a timely fashion, if the 
public is treated with courtesy, the work of the office 
will improve. If people are impressed that support 
personnel can effectively handle their questions and 
problems, the public will view the Public Defender's 
Office as a resource, not just another bureaucracy. As 
public attitude and funding correspond to the performance 
of the office, so the morale of the employees of the 
office corresponds to the public attitude. Good morale 
equals high performance- -an equation that yields a net 
positive to the City and the Public Defender's Office. 



CS2152/10.88 -17- 



V. FELONY UNIT 

Program Cost ; $2,323,377 
Program Goals : 

1. To provide effective legal assistance in all 
felony cases in the Municipal and Superior Courts 

2. To decrease the number of cases where the client 
is held to answer for a felony 

3. To decrease the number and length of state prison 
sentences 

4. To reduce felony conflicts 

The Felony Unit consists of 34 attorneys. The unit 
handles over 5,000 felony cases in the Municipal and 
Superior Court. It is supervised by two Head Trial 
Attorneys, Robert Berman and Daro Inouye. 

The work of the attorneys in this unit begins in the 
Municipal Court, where a felony defendant is arraigned on 
a charge. The court makes a determination whether the 
individual defendant can afford his/her own attorney; and 
if he/she cannot, the court will appoint a Public 
Defender. The Public Defender will then make appropriate 
bail/0. R. motions and set a date for a preliminary 
hearing. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution will 
attempt to show that there is enough evidence to hold the 
defendant to answer in a trial to be held later in the 
Superior Court. 



cs2152/10.88 -18- 



The San Francisco Public Defender's Office is uncommon 
in its handling of felony cases. The independence of the 
office gives it the freedom to employ a "vertical 
representation system" in defending its clients. This 
means that the same lawyer represents the client 
throughout legal proceedings in both the Municipal and 
Superior Courts. The value of this system lies in its 
humanness and consistency. Defendants are not passed from 
attorney to attorney like so much baggage, but receive 
personal and individual attention and service from the 
same attorney at all phases of the process. 

Vertical representation insures the consistent 
handling of the defendant's case throughout the life of 
the case. It makes the attorney fully accountable to the 
client for all decisions and actions on the client's 
behalf. This accountability is an incentive for the 
attorney to give his or her best efforts toward the 
client's cause. 

The alternative process of "horizontal representation" 
leads to buck passing and impersonal legal representation, 
because the client has a different attorney in every phase 
of the case. In a "horizontal" system, the Public 
Defender emphasizes the processing of, not defending, 
clients. It is a system that serves the court and the 
courts' preoccupation with the calendar. 



CS2152/10.88 -19- 



Table F represents the workload and the disposition of 
cases of the Felony Unit from FYs 82-83 to 87-88. 



Arraigned 
Held to Answer 
Certified Pleas 



TABLE F 










Public Defender Felony Cases 








Municipal 


Court Felonies 




82-83 


83-84 


84-85 


85-86 


86-87 


87-88 


4,152 


5,175 


4,256 


4,649 


4,977 


5,660 


918 


815 


913 


659 


648 


856 


530 


533 


446 


645 


740 


1,182 



Activity and Disposition of Superior Court Cases 

Case Activity 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 

Sentences 1,753 1,528 1,338 1,540 1,576 
Case Disposition 



87-88 



1,916 



State Prison 


479 


490 


524 


470 


512 


531 


Probation 


1,079 


815 


549 


831 


976 


1,385 


Dismissals 


193 


198 


233 


218 


154 


165 


Other 


181 


25 


32 


24 


34 


34 


Trial Activity 














Total Cases 


109 


80 


98 


96 


108 


97 


Guilty Verdict 


46 


35 


63 


58 


58 


76 


Acquittals 


40 


16 


20 


19 


36 


9 


Hung Juries 


23 


29 


15 


19 


14 


12 



cs2152/10.88 



-20- 



There are several points that should be emphasized by 
those statistics: 

1. The Caseload Is Very High 

The caseload rose appreciably during the last year in 
every sector of the felony work of our office. There were 
more arraignment in the felony courts in the Municipal 
Court, more motions to revoke, and heavier individual 
caseloads for attorneys. At various points, the caseload 
reached levels beyond the capacity of lawyers to perform 
in an adequate manner on behalf of their clients. It was 
at that point we have had to decline to represent cases in 
other areas, like dependency cases. 

What is especially troubling about this caseload is 
that it has remained high for a continuous, sustained 
period with almost no respite. The trial calendar for the 
last year has averaged over 200 cases per day. The 
constant grind of vast quantities of cases coming into the 
system create serious stress and fatigue problems for 
members of the staff. The work of the attorneys during 
this last year in the face of high caseloads was simply 
heroic. 

2. State Prison Commitments Remain High 
Approximately 27% of Superior Court sentences now 

carry a prison term. The phenomenon that we notice with 
our own cases is also true of private attorneys and 

CS2152/10.88 -21- 



commitments. In 1987, San Francisco's prior commitment 
rose 10%; whereas statewide, it rose 13% over the previous 
year. 

TABLE G 
State Prison Commitments 



1 ) Persons 

Year 

1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 



San Francisco 

525 
593 
841 
724 
634 
646 
880 
846 
933 



California 

9,874 
11,347 
13,932 
15,932 
18,398 
17,602 
20,543 
23,466 
26,535 



(Source: California Department of Corrections) 



2) Cases 

Year 

1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 



San Francisco 

517 
467 
795 
759 
756 
841 
938 
858 
883 



California 

8,878 
10,311 
13,971 
25,122 
16,677 
18,094 
21,421 
24,210 
25,029 



(Source: Adult Felony Dispositions-Department of Justice) 



cs2152/10.88 



-22- 



3 ) Prison Commitments Per 100 Convictions 



Six Months Ending 


State 


Quarter Ending 


State 


6-12/31/77 


29% 


3/31/84 


40% 


1-6/30/78 


33% 


6/30/84 


41% 


7-12/31/78 


34% 


9/30/84 


42% 


1-6/30/79 


34% 


12/30/84 


42% 


7-12/31/79 


34% 


3/31/85 


43% 


1-6/30/80 


35% 


6/30/85 


43% 


7-12/31/80 


36% 


12/31/86 


42% 


1-6/30/81 


37% 


3/30/86 


43% 






6/30/86 


41% 






9/30/86 


43% 






12/31/86 


44% 



(Source: Judicial 


Council ) 




4) Public Defender 


Cases - 


Commitments To State Prison 






Felony Dispositions 


1978-79 


402 


NA 


1979-80 


390 


NA 


1980-81 


538 


NA 


1982-83 


479 


30% 


1983-84 


490 


37.5% 


1984-85 


524 


48.8% 


1985-86 


420 


36.1% 


1986-87 


512 


34.4% 


1987-88 


531 


26.7% 



cs2152/10.88 



-23- 



2. There Has Been A Noticeable Change In The Way 
Plea Bargaining Is Conducted 

As our statistics indicate, a high percentage of 
felony pleas occur at the Municipal Court level. We call 
these certified pleas—pleas are taken by a Municipal 
Court judge and certified to the Superior Court (see Table 
F; Appendix, 3 and 4). 

In other annual reports, we have written of our 
distress with this process. We know that pleas taken so 
early in the process are more likely to be done without 
full investigation and consideration of the merits of the 
case. However, there are reasons why certified pleas have 
become such a prominent part of criminal law practice. 

For one thing, the penalties associated with felony 
cases are so serious that district attorneys can offer a 
reduction in potential sentences in exchange with an early 
plea. 

For another, Proposition 8 restricts and discourages 
plea bargaining in the Superior Court. In many cases, the 
Municipal Court is the only forum for the negotiation and 
acceptance of a plea of guilty. 

3. There Is An Increase In The Number Of Jury Trials 
In recent years, we, in the Public Defender's Office, 

have made it a policy to fight cases in the face of severe 
penalties. 



CS2152/10.88 -24- 



An office that fails to try its share of cases is an 
office that has lost the will to fight for the client. It 
is an office that lacks credibility, because the 
prosecution knows that its attorneys will "roll over" 
rather than defend the client's interests. This does not 
mean that individual attorneys should encourage clients to 
go to trial in cases where the evidence against the client 
are great, and where a plea bargain would lessen the 
exposure to a more severe sentence. But it does mean that 
a trial must be held if a prosecutor fails to create a 
substantial incentive to engage in a plea agreement. 

VI. MISDEMEANOR UNIT 

Program Cost : $1,081,065 
Program Goals : 

1. To represent indigent defendants in misdemeanor 
cases in the Municipal Court 

2. To limit the number of misdemeanor convictions 

3. To try as many misdemeanor cases as is necessary 
to protect the interests of the clients 

The Misdemeanor Unit consists of 17 lawyers. It is 
supervised by Head Trial Attorneys Robin Levine and Ron 
Albers. The unit handles cases in six departments of the 
Municipal Court. As such, it carries a tremendous 
caseload--roughly 9,000 cases a year. 



CS2152/10.88 -25- 



Misdemeanor offenses carry a maximum sentence of six 
months or a year in the county jail and a fine of between 
$500 and $1,000, depending on the charge. 

The misdemeanor courts deal with an enormous variety 
of of fenses--from public drunkenness to auto burglaries 
and aggravated assaults. Table H indicates the work of 
the court. 



Misd. cases 
Motion to revoke 





TABLE H 








Misdemeanor Unit 


Cases 


86-87 




83-84 


84-85 


85-86 


87-88 


7,165 

612 

7,777 


9,158 

802 

9,960 


9,614 

1,024 

10,638 


8,786 
1,177 
9,963 


7,866 
1,087 
8,953 



A matter of particular concern is the number of jury 
trials. Large-scale defense operations can develop a 
"cop-out" mentality ever goes to trial. The routine of 
plea bargaining becomes almost mesmerizing, and jury 
trials become a departure from that routine. The net 
effect is that jury trials decline as an institution, 
because lawyers and judges are too lazy or too afraid to 
make the additional effort of preparation for the trial. 



cs2152/10.88 



-26- 



Table I indicates the jury trial activity over the 
past nine years. 







TABLE 


I 










Misdemeanor Jury Activity 








78-79 


79-80 




80-81 


81-82 


82-83 


Convicted 
Acquitted 
Hung Mis. 


87 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 


85 
37 
30 
18 




135 
58 
38 
39 


78 
38 
26 
14 


92 
42 
40 
12 




83-84 


84-85 




85-86 


86-87 


87-88 


Convicted 
Acquitted 
Hung Mis. 


80 


91 
56 
20 
15 




96 
58 
19 
19 


107 
58 
36 
13 


112 
58 
36 
17 



The most important result for an attorney in criminal 
cases is the dismissal of his/her client's case. Over the 
many years, the number of cases thrown out by the District 
Attorney or the court is high--it has ranged from 35-40% 
in the misdemeanor area. A high percentage are dismissals 
after a plea of not guilty is entered. A portion of the 
dismissals result when defense and prosecution agree to 
defer prosecution and, instead, have the defendant divert 
from the criminal justice system for a specified period. 
If the defendant completes a period of community service 
work and stays out of trouble, the court enters a 
dismissal. 



cs2152/10.88 



-27- 



Table J sets out the pattern of dismissals and 
diversions since FY 78-79 . 

TABLE J 
Fiscal Year Comparisons - Misdemeanor Unit 



Year 


New Cases 


Dismissals 


Diversions 


87-88 


7,866 


1,652 


974 


86-87 


8,786 


2,202 


1,277 


85-86 


9,164 


2,080 


962 


84-85 


9,158 


2,165 


967 


83-84 








82-83 


8,375 


2,522 


1,483 


81-82 


9,826 


2,473 


2,137 


80-81 


8,622 


3,404 


1,198 


79-80 


8,395 


3,433 


577 


78-79 


12,136 


Not av . 


Not av. 



VII. JUVENILE UNIT 

Program Cost : $712,103 
Program Goals : 

1. To represent juveniles in delinquency cases and 
in cases where the District Attorney seeks to 
exclude juveniles from the juvenile justice 
system 

2. To represent adults whose parental rights are 
being suspended or terminated 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile 
clients in the Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance 
Center. The juvenile court unit of the office has a staff 
of seven attorneys, one investigator, two social workers, 



CS2152/10.88 -28- 



and three clerical-secretarial personnel. The unit is 
supervised by Head Trial Attorney Joseph L. Spaeth. 

Most of the Public Defender juvenile clients are 
charged with having committed offenses which, if the 
juveniles were adults, would be crimes. In these 
proceedings, the District Attorney files a petition 
pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions 
Code. The case is later heard before a referee or before 
a Superior Court judge. 

The Public Defender also represents other juveniles 
who are alleged to have behavior problems. These 
juveniles are not charged with committing any acts which 
would be criminal in adult courts. Typically, these are 
children who are charged with truancy, with curfew 
violations, or with being beyond parental control. These 
are called "status" offenders. Petitions pursuant to 
Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code are filed 
in these cases. If these petitions are granted, the child 
is taken from the control of his or her parents. 

In certain criminal-type cases, the District 
Attorney will attempt to exclude a juvenile from the 
juvenile court process and to have the juvenile prosecuted 
as an adult in an adult criminal court (pursuant to 
Section 707, et seq., Welfare and Institutions Code). 
Before that action is taken, the juvenile receives a 

cs2152/10.88 -29- 



hearing on whether or not it is proper to have the 
juvenile tried as an adult. 

The Public Defender had until September, 1988 
represented parents in Juvenile Court, where the 
Department of Social Services attempts to suspend or to 
terminate the parents' custody over their children. 
However, with the loss of three positions from our FY 
88-89 budget, we were unable to represent competently the 
same number of clients. Since parental -custody cases were 
the only non-mandatory part of our caseload (that is, the 
only one in which we were not required by law to represent 
a client), we felt that we must discontinue to represent 
clients in that area of the law. 

The Public Defender must be a forceful and a zealous 
advocate for the protection of the rights of the 
juvenile. Juvenile cases are adversary proceedings, and 
the attorney must use all of his talents in presenting the 
factual and the legal defenses on behalf of the juvenile 
client. At the same time, the Public Defender must also 
be sensitive to the special problems confronting a 
juvenile offender. Attorneys in the juvenile courts must 
be able to identify emotional and educational difficulties 
and to explore the alternative which exist outside of the 
legal system. The lawyers must utilize fully all of the 



cs2152/10.88 -30- 



community-based agencies which provide social or 
psychiatric assistance. 



2. 



3. 







TABLE 


K 












Juvenile Statistics 










Fiscal Year Comparisons 








Caseloads--Public Defender 










Year 


601 


602 


707 


300 




Total 




(Delin- 


( Criminal ) 


( Removal 


( Dependency ) 






quency ) 




to Adult 














Jurisdiction) 






78-79 


127 


2,119 


NA 


225 




2,471 


79-80 


141 


1,410 


19 


325 




1,895 


80-81 


145 


2,118 


15 


197 




2,475 


81-82 


130 


2,470 


12 


202 




2,823 


82-83 


89 


2,217 


8 


320 




2,634 


83-84 


30 


2,181 





39 




2,250 


84-85 


66 


1,944 


5 


522 




2,537 


85-86 




1,927 


2 


869 




2,798 


86-87 




2,054 


1 


825 




2,880 


87-88 




2,501 


2 


806 




3,309 


Commitments to 


CYA— Public I 


Defender Cases 


83-84 — 


86* 






78-79 -- 


— 96 








79-80 - 


— 81 




84-85 — 


31 






80-81 — 


-- 89 




85-86 --- 


36 






81-82 - 


-- 90 




86-87 


16 






82-83 -• 


— 65 










Commitments to 


Log Cabin--Public Defender 


Cases 


113' 






79-80 -• 


-- 136 




83-84 


fe 




80-81 -• 


-- 95 




84-85 


128 






81-82 -• 


-- 102 




85-86 


130 






82-83 -■ 


-- 103 




86-87 - — 
87-88 


123 
97 





All cases--P.D. and non-P.D. cases 



cs2152/10.88 



-31- 



MBO OBJECTIVES 

1. To represent juveniles in at least 2,200 cases petitioned 
under Sections 601, 602, and 707 W&I Code and 300 adults in 
Section 300 W&I Code proceedings 

Our statistical findings parallel those of the 

Department of Justice and the Judicial Council ( see Table 

L): 



TABLE L 



Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filing (All Cases 



1. Department of Justice: Active Juvenile Probation 
Caseload 1972-1981 





1972 - 1, 


997 


1977 - 1,144 


1982 


- 1 


,385 






1973 - 1, 


956 


1978 - 1,119 


1983 


- 1 


,348 






1974 - 2, 


004 


1979 - 1,333 


1984 


- 1 


,208 






1975 - 1, 


940 


1980 - 1,313 


1985 


- 1 


,291 






1976 - 1, 


837 


1981 - 1,259 


1986 
1987 


- 1 

- 1 


,287 
,255 




2. Judicial Council Reports: Juvenil 


e Court 


Fil: 


Lng 




Year 


Total 


Original Subsequent 


Contested 


601 W&I 


602 W&I 




Filings 


Filings Filings 


Matters 


i 






76-77 


2,355 


1,597 


758 


480 




209 


2,098 


77-78 


2,017 


1,484 


533 


437 




172 


1,815 


78-79 


2,130 


1,467 


653 


516 




93 


2,026 


79-80 


2,116 


1,426 


690 


621 




132 


1,979 


80-81 


1,933 


1,178 


755 


556 




119 


1,456 


81-82 


2,295 


1,388 


907 


530 




87 


1,301 


82-83 


2,356 


1,128 


1,030 


305 




49 


1,254 


83-84 


2,158 


1,278 


1,078 


270 




71 


1,083 


84-85 


1,982 


1,533 


449 


235 




19 


1,518 


85-86 


1,981 


1,618 


363 


221 




16 


1,966 


86-87 


1,730 


998 


732 


262 




34 


1,690 


87-88 


NA 


NA 


NA 


NA 




NA 


NA 



CS2152/10.88 



-32- 



This last year the caseload of the Public Defender's 
Office, after years of remaining stable, shot up to its 
highest point since we have been measuring it. This 
increase reflects, in the opinion of all concerned, the 
huge number of "crack" cocaine arrests. The overall 
arrests in narcotics rose over 80%, and these arrests in 
disproportionate numbers result in juvenile filings and 
detentions. 

2. To utilize social work in at least 
225 delinquency cases 

The Juvenile Unit employs two full-time social 
workers. They interview clients, render evaluation, and 
provide dispositional plans. They do this work in 601, 
602, and 707 W&I cases. Their work has been successful in 
reducing log cabin and CYA commitments and in persuading 
the court not to exclude the juvenile from the juvenile 
system. 

The Public Defender social workers have an important 
advantage: the information is conveyed within the setting 
and the protection of the lawyer-client relationship. 
Thus, the client and the client's relatives are more 
likely to speak candidly about their problems. 
Accordingly, the social worker is better able to make an 
accurate diagnosis and an appropriate plan for treatment 
or assistance. 



cs2152/10.88 -33- 



3. To involve community-based agency participation 
in at least 120 cases 

There exists a rich network of community-based 
agencies, many existing on private funding, others on 
public and quasi-public funding. They have trained 
counselors and instructors and they serve specialized 
clientele; i.e., Hispanic youth in the Mission by "Real 
Alternatives". Currently, the office makes good use of 
these programs; the office will continue to increase its 
involvement with these groups. 

The use of these agencies is a healthy alternative to 
incarceration in juvenile hall, log cabin, or CYA. These 
agencies provide guidance in educational, emotional, and 
behavioral problems for young people; whereas custody 
hardens young people, isolates from the mainstream, and 
tends to criminalize them. 

4. To limit the number of 707 W&I certifications to 10 

The exclusion of the juvenile offender from the 
juvenile justice system is a drastic step. It means that 
the youth is punishable in the same way that an adult is 
and can suffer the state prison sentences for lengthy 
terms. 

A youth charged with certain crimes, like murder, 
robbery, rape, will be presumed to be unfit for the 
juvenile justice system. These crimes are listed in 



CS2152/10.88 -34- 



Section 707b. Youth who are charged with all other 
offenses, not set forth in Section 707b, are not presumed; 
and the burden is on the prosecutor to establish unfitness 

The Public Defender has made every effort to keep 
youth charged with crimes, even serious crimes, within the 
juvenile justice system. 

We feel that rarely, if ever, are youthful offenders 
"helped" by adult punishment or deterred from further 
criminality. The youth is merely hardened or criminalized 
further by exposure to the world of the adult offender. 
We feel, too, that adult treatment is never really carried 
out--the juvenile remains largely isolated from adults and 
held in separate facilities — whether in the county jail or 
state prison. And there is a final irony: most of those 
excluded from the juvenile court end up going to the 
California Youth Authority after being tried and sentenced 
as an adult. 

Fortunately, we held the total number of 707 W&I 
exclusions in FY 87-88 down to just two cases. 

Dependency Cases 

The withdrawal of the Public Defender's Office from 
dependency cases involving parental custody rights was 
necessitated by extreme, budgetary considerations. Over 
the last eighty years, the area has grown to become an 



CS2152/10.88 -35- 



important part of the work of this office. The office 
developed an expertise and a specialty capability and 
provided its representation on cost-efficient basis. 

Today, sadly, that expertise is dormant. Today, the 
Superior Court must appoint private counsel to do the work 
previously performed by deputy public defenders at more 
than twice the cost. 

It is clear that the Public Defender should re-enter 
the area of dependency. 

VIZI. MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 

Program Cost ; $387,949 
Program Goals : 

1. To represent those alleged to be mentally ill 
in conservatorship proceedings 

2. To represent the retarded in progress related 
to their treatment and placement 

3. To represent the insane in proceedings for the 
restoration of their sanity 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney in 
the community for the mentally ill. Most of the work of 
the Mental Health Unit is done in the defense of petitions 
to establish mental health conservatorships pursuant to 
Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This 
conservatorship petition is the legal procedure for 
establishing judicial control over a person who is alleged 

CS2152/10.88 -36- 



to be a danger to himself or others or who is gravely 
disabled to the extent of lacking the ability to provide 
food, shelter, and care for himself /herself . If the 
petition is granted, an individual may be placed in a 
state hospital or in a local facility, whichever the court 
deems appropriate. 

In these cases, the Public Defender is appointed to 
represent the proposed conservatee. As the attorney for 
the proposed conservatee, the Public Defender must review 
the medical reports, witnesses, and explore alternative 
placement if the client contests the hearing. 

The Mental Health Unit also represents mentally-ill 
clients who have been sent to state hospitals. These 
involve conservatees committed under Section 5500 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code who have a right to periodic 
review of their status and their treatment, clients who 
have been found incompetent to stand trial under Sections 
1368-70 of the Penal Code, those who have been found not 
guilty by reason of insanity under Section 1027 of the 
Penal Code, mentally disordered sex offenders pursuant to 
Section 6300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and 
mentally retarded dangerous persons under Section 6500 of 
the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

These clients must be regularly visited and 
interviewed. If the state hospital makes an inappropriate 

cs2152/10.88 -37- 



recommendation for a patient, the Public Defender must 
bring that fact to the attention of the court. If it is 
necessary, a jury trial may be held to determine whether 
or not a person should be kept in a state hospital or 
whether or not his/her parole should be revoked. 

TABLE M 

Summary of Mental Health Unit ' s Work 
Statistics Fiscal Year 1987-88 



14-Day Certification 

Writs of Habeas Corpus Granted 13 

Denied 53 

Withdrawn 49 
TOTAL CASES 

New Conservatorships Granted 278 

Denied 709 
TOTAL CASES 

Conservatorship Renewals Granted 526 

Denied 193 
TOTAL CASES 

Prehearings Released 3 

Held 20 

Withdrawn 16 
TOTAL CASES 

Medical Consents Granted 31 

Denied 7 

TOTAL CASES 

Electroshock Hearings Granted 7 

Denied 1 

TOTAL CASES 



2,997 



115 



987 



719 



39 



38 



8 



CS2152/10.88 



-38- 



Progress Reports 

Change Conservator Hearings 

Placements Hearings 

Placement change ordered 33 
Placement remained 25 

TOTAL CASES 

Probate Code 3200 Cases 

Jury Demands 

TOTAL CIVIL CASES 

Penal Code Section 1026.5 

Granted 8 
Denied 1 

TOTAL CASES 



Penal Code Section 1026.2(E) 



Granted 4 

Denied 6 

Withdrawn 3 

Pending 3 
TOTAL CASES 



Penal Code Section 1026.2 



Restored 2 
Withdrawn 2 
TOTAL CASES 

Penal Code Section 1600 Hearings 

TOTAL CRIMINAL CASES 

TOTAL MENTAL HEALTH UNIT CASES 



26 
18 



58 

19 

7 

5,031 



17 



4 
22 

51 
5,082 



CS2152/10.88 



-39- 



IX. RESEARCH UNIT 

Program Cost : $224,799 
Program Goals : 

1. To prepare writs and appeals, legal memoranda in 
complex cases 

2. To provide research for cases in litigation 

3. To provide technical assistance in writs and 
appeals 

The newest administrative component of the Public 
Defender's Office is the Research Unit. It is located on 
the second floor, beside the Public Defender Library. One 
Head Trial Attorney, Grace L. Suarez; another attorney; 
and one paralegal work there. The unit writes briefs, 
writs and appeals, researches the law for cases in trial, 
and provides technical assistance to attorneys in the 
preparation and filing of pleadings. 

The unit has an indexed brief bank and a microfiche 
file containing cases of the State Public Defender. The 
unit also has a Westlaw terminal to perform computerized 
legal research. 

The unit has the use of three Wang word processors 
and one Apple computer which generate work rapidly. 

The value of the unit cannot be overstated. It 
generates an average of 18 documents a month, including 



CS2152/10.88 -40- 



petitions for writs, appellate briefs, and trial motions. 
Not included are the many questions handled orally and the 
ongoing technical assistance provided to lawyers in 
trial. This can include anything from performing a 
Westlaw search for an attorney about to argue a motion to 
drafting special jury instructions. 

The unit's staff constantly maintains and updates a 
brief bank containing several hundred documents. They are 
indexed on the Wang word processor for easy retrieval. In 
addition, a library of forms, kept online on the Wang 
system, provides attorneys with up-to-date, technically- 
correct documents. 

The Public Defender library contains updated practice 
books and materials from recent lectures, making it an 
efficient research tool. Maintaining the library and 
brief bank occupies a substantial portion of staff time. 

The unit produces a monthly bulletin citing and 
summarizing appellate decisions and issues memos as needed 
on important cases and new laws. 

The work of the unit enhances the quality of the trial 
attorney's representation. The harried trial practitioner 
can still submit a well-researched and drafted motion and 
seek pretrial writ relief within hours or the motion's 
denial . The attorney can keep up with the torrent of new 
cases published every year and can feel confident that the 

CS2152/10.88 -41- 



advice he gives is based upon an understanding of the most 
current law. 

X. INVESTIGATION UNIT 

Program Cost : $699,122 
Program Goals : 

1. To obtain information about the facts and 
circumstances regarding the cases of the 
individual clients represented by the Public 
Defender 

2. To provide necessary support services to attorneys 
in furtherance of the representation of those cases 

The Investigative Unit consists of a Head Trial 
Attorney, Gordon H. Armstrong, who supervises the unit, 9 
investigators, and 3 clerks. The unit carries out 
investigation for the Felony, Misdemeanor, and Mental 
Health Units. All told the section carried out 2,135 
investigations . 

An investigator starts working on a case when an 
attorney makes a written request. The request may ask 
that a witness be located and interviewed, that the crime 
scene be photographed, and/or that a document be located. 
A suspense date is set for the completion of the 
investigation. Supplementary requests may be made. the 
same investigator will be assigned to the case throughout 
the life of the case. 

CS2152/10.88 -42- 



Solid and competent investigation is absolutely 
essential to effective representation. It can literally 
win the case for the lawyer. It can provide the 
exculpatory evidence which proves a client's innocence. 
It can find those facts which contradict the prosecutor's 
case. 

Offices simply cannot afford to neglect adequate and 

professionalized defense services. As the 1976 Commission 

on Defense Services stated: 

Criminal investigation is an 
essential element of criminal 
defense. Offices lacking adequate 
investigative staff tend to neglect 
the investigative function and rely 
on the state ' s version of witness 
statements and other evidence. It is 
not cost-effective for lawyers to do 
all of the investigation connected 
with a case. Moreover, where lawyers 
conduct investigations, it may be 
necessary to have an investigator 
along to refute charges of impropriety 
and to have a witness who can testify 
at trial if necessary. 

Secondly, since investigation is 
increasingly becoming a professional 
skill requiring professional 
expertise, investigators should be 
hired who have the professional 
skills required. Professional 
investigators greatly improve the 
overall quality of service in a 
defender office. 

In order to ensure that 
investigations are conducted in every 
case where there is a factual 
question not subject to objective 
determination, an adequate attorney- 
investigator ratio is necessary. at 



cs2152/10.88 -43- 



least one investigator should be 
employed for every three staff 
attorneys. This figure is based upon 
the experience of defenders from 
coast to coast. (At p. 333. ) 

This year, the Investigative Unit completed 1,780 
investigations . 

The Investigative unit experienced the selection of 
ten investigators through the Civil Service. At last, the 
temporary status was ended. 

XI. OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST 
1. Conflicts 

The Public Defender is required to represent all 
persons accused of crimes who do not have enough money for 
their counsel. However, cases arise where the Public 
Defender cannot represent an accused who does not have 
funds for his own counsel. For example, there may be more 
than one person charged in a case, and the Public Defender 
can only represent one person. In that case, the Public 
Defender declares a conflict-of-interest; and a separate, 
private attorney will be appointed. Conflicts can arise 
also where a public defender client becomes a witness 
against another public defender client. In that case, one 
or the other will have to have separate non-public 
defender counsel. 



CS2152/10.88 -44- 



We have sought to limit declarations of conflict-of- 
interest to those situations required by law and ethics. 
In multiple defendant cases, we usually represent the 
"heaviest" defendant—the one whose case requires the most 
work. 

Conflict costs are expensive. What is more, a Public 
Defender that shies away from serious cases by finding a 
farfetched reason for a conflict does a disservice to his 
statutory responsibilities. The following table states 
the number of conflict cases, as well as the costs, over 
the last several years. 

TABLE N 
Conflict Cases 

Conflict Costs 



Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 




Total 


82-83 


605,822 


794,992 


1, 


, 400, 814 


83-84 


600,719 


840,201 


1, 


,440,920 


84-85 


508,893 


968,707 


1, 


,477,602 


85-86 


1,064,647 


1,080,848 


2, 


,145,495 


86-87 


921,935 


1,383,426 


2 


,305,361 


87-88 


1,029,190 


1,545,164 


2, 


,574,354 


Number 


of Conflict Cases 








Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 




Total 


82-83 


2,096 


1,111 




3,207 


83-84 


1,532 


1,025 




2,557 


84-85 


1,432 


787 




2,219 


85-86 


2,417 


1,460 




3,877 


86-87 


2,007 


1,841 




3,848 


87-88 


2,465 


2,373 




4,836 



CS2152/10.88 



-45- 



2. Volunteer Attorneys --Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro 
For over ten years, the Public Defender's Office has 

benefited from the volunteer participation of Pillsbury, 
Madison & Sutro and Morrison & Foerster. Recently, our 
volunteer staff has been joined by members of the law firm 
of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. For stints up to 
six months, an attorney from one of the nation's most 
prestigious firms works in our office handling felony 
cases. The quality of their work has been outstanding, 
reflecting the excellence and public spirit of their firm 
and themselves individually. We all owe a great vote of 
thanks to these fine lawyers. 

3. War on Drugs 

During FY 87-88, the Office of the Public Defender 

experienced the greatest influx of felony cases in 

memory. The increase reflected the mammoth number of 

narcotics arrests, particularly in the crack cocaine 

area. Table sets forth the increase in narcotic arrests 

and filings. 

TABLE 

Narcotic Arrests, Felony Arrests, 
Narcotic and Felony Rebookings 

Narcotic Total Narcotic Total 

Arrests Arrests Rebookings Rebookings 

1986-87 7,240 16,668 3,727 6,646 

1987-88 l,119(+53.5%) 20, 970( +25.8%) 5, 376( +44.2%) 8,042(+20%) 

(Source: District Attorney's Office) 

CS2152/10.88 -46- 



As we suggested in last year's Annual Report, the 
Increase in narcotics arrests resulted from a doubling of 
narcotic-assigned police officers. There was no 
corresponding increase in any of the other agencies in the 
criminal justice system -- the Public Defender, the 
District Attorney, the Adult and Juvenile Probation 
Departments, and the Sheriff. The effect soon became 
apparent: the courts were jammed, the probation officers 
could not complete presentence reports in time, and the 
jails filled beyond capacity. To compound the problem, 
each of these agencies suffered budgetary cuts. 

The Public Defender was forced in August, after the 
close of fiscal year, to refuse cases in one misdemeanor 
department, so that it could have two additional deputies 
to the felony courts. Had we not done that, it is clear 
that the felony caseload would have beyond the capacity of 
the attorneys to provide adequate representation. 

For all the law enforcement effort to suppress drug 
traffic in this City in the last year, these facts are 
evident: 

1. The drug traffic has not been affected. The 
police are still making the same number of arrests, and 
their program is not having a deterrent effect. As Lt. 



CS2152/10.88 -47- 



Rene La Prevotte said recently: "We are making over 1,000 
arrests a month, and we haven't made a dent in the 
problem. " 

2. There is a crying shortage of rehabilitative 
services. There are almost no bed space available for 
youths despite the fact that crack arrests are filling up 
Juvenile hall. There are few for adults, and none for 
addicted mothers. 

3. Most offenders are being given probation, but 
without any supportive service. For first-time offenders, 
probationary sentences are the most common dispositions. 
Each offender is required by the terms and conditions of 
his probation to seek counseling and treatment as directed 
by the probation officer. Yet, the counseling and 
treatment is nonexistent. The probationer is set up for 
failure and, by and large, the revocation of his probation 
is a matter of time. 

4. The police have yet to bring an important drug 
dealer to justice. 

In sum, the law enforcement model currently under use 
in San Francisco is a failure. It neither deters nor 
rehabilitates. Its operation is a tribute to man's 
capacity to delude himself with meaningless and routine 
action. We await an innovator with new ideas and 
inspiration that will offer an alternative to shibboleths 

cs2152/10.88 -48- 



of criminal justice bureaucrats and headline-grapping 
politicians. 

4. Caseload Standards 

The glut of narcotics arrests very nearly undermined 
the ability of the Office of the Public Defender to 
provide adequate representation in felony cases. The 
consistently-high preliminary hearing, motion to revoke, 
and trial loads of individual attorneys have caused us to 
develop felony caseloads standards, so that we can define 
the maximum number of cases the office can accept. 

The problem of defining in precise numerical terms is 
anything but easy. Cases vary in their demands and their 
complexity. But realistic standards that reflect the 
shared experience of public defender practitioners are 
essential if management is going to undertake the 
difficult and controversial task of declining cases. 

5. Affirmative Action 

Affirmative Action represents a major goal for 1988. 
The Office of the Public Defender represents in great 
number individual from minority backgrounds. The presence 
of attorneys from ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds 
of the client community assists the lawyer-client relation- 
ship by developing more a relationship of trust. It is 
also an important statement to this office's commitment to 

CS2152/10.88 -49- 



equal opportunity. At the present time, 39%Z/ of the 
lawyers are of minority ethnic groups, and 42% are women. 
In addition, this office has a substantial presence of Gay 
and Lesbian attorneys. In 1989, it will be our intention 
to increase minority presence in this office, and we are 
confident we can do it. Although the Civil Service 
Commission has determined that we are in compliance with 
workforce standards**/, we are determined to make this 
office even more representative of the community. 



U (Black attorneys, 8 = 11.95, Hispanic, 7 = 10%, 
Asians, 11 = 16.4%). 

8/ The total data for attorneys meets "'Lawyer' labor 
force availability for San Francisco" (Letter of Nancy 
Yokoyama Woo to Jeff Brown, dated December 12, 1985). 



cs2152/10.88 -50- 



APPENDIX A 



Workload and Activity of Municipal and Superior Courts 



1. Certified Pleas 



1978-79 


314 


1979-80 


390 


1980 


375 


1980-81 


462 


1981 


880 


1981-82 


822 


1982 


1,215 


1982-83 


1,649 


1983 


1,065 


1983-84 


1,111 


1984 


1,208 


1984-85 


1,400 


1985 


1,579 


1985-86 


1,563 


1986 


1,651 


1986-87 


1,929 


1987-88 


2,564 



(Source: Judicial Council) 

2. Persons Accused 
of Felony Cases 
in Municipal Court 



Persons Accused of 
Non-Traffic Misdemeanors 
in Municipal Court 



1978-79 


6,038 


1979-80 


6,629 


1980 


6,345 


1980-81 


6,415 


1981-82 


7,708 


1982 


7,235 


1982-83 


6,964 


1983 


6,717 


1983-84 


5,982 


1984 


6,014 


1984-85 


6,550 


1985 


7,311 


1985-86 


7,412 


1986 


7,137 


1986-87 


7,166 


1987-88 


8,806 



1979-80 

1980 

1980-81 

1981-82 

1982 

1982-83 

1983 

1983-84 

1984 

1984-85 

1985 

1985-86 

1986 

1986-87 

1987-88 



15,131 
17,510 
14,322 
20,091 
18,276 
14,418 
11,563 
12,281 
13,831 
15,399 
15,495 
15,206 
14,656 
13,417 
11,172 



(Source: Judicial Council 
Reports of Municipal Court) 



(Source: Judicial Council 
Reports of Municipal Court ) 



cs2152/10.88 



-51- 



4. Superior Court Activity 

1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 

New Actions 3,267 3,148 3,491 2,840 4,412 

Informations 1,920 1,731 1,512 1,772 

Indictments 1 1 n/a 4 

Certifications 1,129 1,250 1,802 1,929 2,491 
( Source : Superior Court ) 

5. Arrests for Opiates 





1986 


1987 


1988 


August 


389 


508 




September 


354 


590 




October 


377 


710 




November 


356 


692 




December 


344 


730 




January 




506 


765 


February 




368 


682 


March 




228 


980 


April 




417 


815 


May 




472 


789 


June 




446 


788 


July 




457 


741 


August 




508 


807 



cs2152/10.88 -52- 



Public Defender Cases Pending 
in Superior Court for Trial 



1983 1984 1985 



1/3 


160 


1/1 


186 


1/16 


232 


1/15 


164 


1/15 


163 


2/1 


236 


2/15 


166 


2/16 


187 


2/16 


225 


3/1 


165 


3/16 


218 


3/1 


227 


3/15 


147 


4/16 


218 


3/15 


210 


4/4 


150 


6/1 


190 


4/16 


197 


4/21 


169 


6/16 


182 


5/1 


213 


5/1 


178 


7/1 


177 


5/16 


206 


5/15 


170 


7/16 


173 


7/16 


160 


6/1 


160 


8/1 


193 


8/1 


147 


6/19 


155 


8/16 


191 


9/1 


128 


7/1 


158 


8/31 


204 


10/1 


178 


7/16 


152 


9/16 


217 


10/15 


185 


8/1 


166 


10/16 


190 


11/1 


201 


9/1 


187 


11/1 


210 


11/16 


191 


9/15 


210 


11/16 


230 


12/1 


193 


10/1 


174 


12/16 


199 


12/16 


194 


10/15 


218 


Av: 


195.21 


Av: 


195.47 


11/1 


187 










11/16 


204 










12/1 


205 










12/15 


189 











Av: 174.2 



CS2152/10.88 -53- 



1986 1987 1988 



1/1 


208 


2/1 


200 


1/4 


246 


2/1 


230 


2/14 


181 


1/11 


255 


2/16 


263 


3/28 


176 


1/18 


241 


3/1 


296 


4/4 


178 


1/25 


234 


4/1 


285 


4/20 


179 


2/1 


233 


4/19 


259 


5/2 


185 


2/8 


233 


4/21 


254 


6/1 


130 


2/15 


233 


4/28 


246 


6/17 


134 


3/8 


258 


5/2 


236 


6/27 


119 


3/28 


247 


5/12 


247 


7/13 


118 


4/16 


255 


5/19 


207 


7/18 


129 


4/18 


255 


5/26 


192 


7/25 


144 


4/25 


253 


6/2 


184 


8/1 


152 


6/13 


227 


6/9 


200 


8/9 


167 


6/27 


233 


6/15 


200 


8/17 


174 


7/25 


260 


8/16 


172 


8/24 


182 


7/27 


255 


8/25 


164 


8/31 


172 


8/22 


259 


9/1 


159 


9/8 


186 


8/29 


269 


9/15 


161 


9/21 


188 


9/5 


237 


9/23 


167 


10/5 


195 


9/12 


202 


9/30 


167 


10/12 


206 


9/19 


202 


10/10 


202 


10/26 


206 


9/28 


180 


10/16 


199 


11/2 


207 


10/1 


195 


11/2 


206 


Av: 


177.25 


10/7 


203 


11/22 


200 






10/14 


203 


12/1 


196 










12/6 


202 










12/13 


197 










1/6 


183 











Av: 210 

( Source : CMS Computer ) 



cs2152/10.88 -54- 



7. Public Defender Cases Going to Superior Court 



by Holdings or Certified Pleas 


06/87 


191 


07/87 


183 


08/87 


181 


09/87 


225 


10/87 


230 


11/87 


204 


12/87 


240 


01/88 


221 


02/88 


223 


03/88 


270 


04/88 


263 


05/88 


282 


06/88 


317 


07/88 


273 


08/88 


301 



CS2152/10.88 -55- 



5 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1988-89 FISCAL YEAR 






ANNUAL REPORT 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 12 1990 



SAN hK^pji^ii^Q 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



DOCUMENTS DBJJ- 

: LIBRARY 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction 1 

I. Jurisdiction 3 

II. Office Structure, Staff, Budget, 

and Workload 5 

ill. Executive Officers 13 

IV. Administration 15 

V. Felony Unit 16 

VI. Misdemeanor Unit 24 

VII. Juvenile Unit 27 

VIII. Mental Health Unit 34 

IX. Research Unit 38 

X. Investigation Unit 41 

XI. Other Matters of Interest 43 



TABLES Page 

Table A - Cost Breakdown 8 

Table B - Comparative Budgets 1978-1989 10 

Table C - Program Costs 11 

Table D - Recent Caseloads 12 

Table E - Criminal Cases in Public Defender's Office 19 

Table F - New Public Defender Cases 20 

Table G - All Cases (New) - Muni and Superior Court 21 

Table H - Fiscal Year Comparisons - 

Public Defender Cases 26 

Table I - Juvenile Statistics 29 

Table J - Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filing 30 

Table K - Filings in the Juvenile System 31 

Table L - Juvenile Bookings and Citations 32 

Table M - Statistics - Mental Health 36 

Table N - Conflict Cases - Costs and Number 44 

APPENDIX 

A - Jury Trials 47 

B - Workload and Activity of Municipal 

and Superior Courts 48 



INTRODUCTION 

This Annual Report is a statement of the work of the Public 
Defender's Office. It is a description of the jurisdiction of the 
office and a record of the expenditures, programs, program costs, 
and performance objectives for this department of city 
government. 

The Public Defender represents people charged with crimes 
who do not have money to hire their own lawyers. Twenty 
thousand such people are represented every year. To carry out 
that responsibility, the Public Defender has a staff of 66 lawyers 
and 36 support personnel. 

The Public Defender is responsible for seeing that each client 

is fully and competently represented. This requires the Public 

Defender to provide each client with a defense that works to the 

maximum legal advantage of that client. Whatever the Public 

Defender's status as a public officer, the Public Defender's primary 

duty and loyalty is to the client, no matter how grievous the 

i 
charges and no matter how strong the evidence against that 

person is. 

The San Francisco Public Defender is elected: one of the 

few in this country. With that status comes certain 

responsibilities. First, as an elected official, the Public Defender 

is accountable to the public in terms of the quality of his 

administration. The public has a right to know the level of 



expertise, the nature of the Public Defender's hiring, the efficiency 
of the office, the level of integrity, and honesty. 

Second, as an elected official, the Public Defender has the 
duty to articulate the concerns he has about the overall quality of 
justice within the system. The elected Public Defender has a duty 
to be more than a passive player within the system. He must 
speak up as injustices occur-either in the working of the judicial 
system or in the legislative process. In that sense, the Public 
Defender must be a leader of public opinion. 

Third, the elected Public Defender has a duty to protect the 
indigent defense system against negative public opinion or 
politically-motivated action. The Public Defender must never 
succumb to the temptation to put the interests of public opinion, 
or his own popularity, over the interests of the client. Throughout 
this detailed report, we hope the reader keeps in mind the 
principal concern of this department: that every client receive the 
highest quality of representation. The task of every employee, 
whether department head or telephone operator, is to ask this 
question--"is there anything more, within reason, we could do for 
the man or woman who uses our services?" 

There are usually 100 employees, and the proper and efficient 
distribution of work assignments for each person is essential. In 
order to meet the demand of effectively representing each client's 



cps299/12.89 



case, an administrative structure exists within which workload is 
distributed and work performance is closely supervised. 

OVERALL OFFICE GOALS 

The overall goals of the office are: 

1. To insure that each defendant receives competent and 
zealous representation 

2. To maintain the highest professional and ethical standards 
on the part of each employee of the department 

3. To insure that the delivery of legal services be as 
economical as possible without sacrificing the quality of 
those services 

4. To maintain public respect for the public defender and the 
criminal justice system 

Everything that is done in the Public Defender's Office is 
designed to bring about these goals. 

I. JURISDICTION 

Section 33 of the Charter: 

[The Public Defender] shall immediately, 
upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or 
upon order of the court, defend or give 
advice to a person charged with the 
commission of a crime. 

The Public Defender is a creature of the Charter of the City 

and County of San Francisco. The Charter provides that the 

Public Defender will represent persons who have been charged 

cps299/12.89 3 



with criminal offenses and who are without funds to pay for a 
privately-retained lawyer. 1 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the Charter, the 
California Government Code also authorizes counties, such as San 
Francisco, to establish public defender offices. 2 The Government 
Code sets forth the types of cases which can be handled by a 
County Public Defender. These include: 3 

(1) Criminal cases upon request of the 
defendant or by appointment of the 
court; 

(2) Contempt cases; 

(3) Appeals; 

(4) Actions for the collection of wages 
or other demands against a person 
for under one hundred dollars; 

(5) Defense of individuals in civil 
litigation where a person is being 
harassed or persecuted; 

(6) Cases involving mental health 
guardianships and conservatorships; 4 

(7) Juvenile cases. 

The Welfare and Institutions Code also provides for the 
appointment of attorneys for indigent parents whose custody 



' Chart* Section 33 

2 Government Code Section 27706 

3 bid. 



4 Probate Code Section 1471 also provides lor public defender appointment h probate guardianship under 
specified conditions. 

cps299/12.89 4 



rights to their children are being subjected to proceedings for 
suspension or for termination of those rights. 5 

The law, thus, provides for public defender representation in 
a wide spectrum of activities. Although the great bulk of the 
office's activities are in the criminal courts, the office is also quite 
active in representing persons in mental health and in juvenile 
cases. 

II. OFFICE STRUCTURE, STAFF, BUDGET, AND WORKLOAD 
1. Office Structure 

The executive officer of the Public Defender's Office is the 
Public Defender. The Public Defender is elected every four years. 
The Public Defender appoints all Deputy Public Defenders and a 
Confidential Secretary. 8 These employees serve at the pleasure 
of the Public Defender. The balance of the staff, which includes 
investigators, secretarial, and other support personnel, are 
selected through Civil Service rules. 

The Chief Attorney is the second executive officer of the 
department. The Chief Attorney is the person to whom all other 
supervisors directly report. The Chief Attorney is Acting Public 
Defender should the former leave the state. 



5 Sections 634 and 317 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. On August 1, 1968, the Public Defender 
discontinued representation in cases of parental rights. The reason for this action was the cut in funding and toss of 
budgeted attorney positions. 

Charter Section 347 

cps299/12.89 5 



There are seven administrative units in the Public Defender's 
Office. Six of these seven relate directly to legal representation 
and are under the direction of supervising attorneys. These 
include: 

(1) Misdemeanor Unit: 17 attorneys in 
6 Municipal Courts. 

(2) Felony Unit: 36 attorneys in both 
the Municipal Court (Felony Division) 
and in the Superior Court. 

(3) Mental Health Unit: 3 attorneys, 2 
investigators. 

(4) Juvenile Unit: 5 attorneys, 1 
investigator, 2 social workers, 3 
clerical-secretarial personnel. 

(5) Research Unit: 2 attorneys and 1 
paralegal. 

(6) Investigative Unit: 1 principal 
attorney as supervisor, 10 
investigators, 3 clerks. 

(7) Administrative Unit: 1 executive 
assistant, 1 accounts coordinator, 
15 clerical personnel. 



cps299/12.89 6 



2. Staff 

A breakdown of the Office by class and job title is: 

Attorney 66 

Investigator 12 

Executive Assistant 1 

Fiscal/Budget Coordinator 1 

Legal Sec. I 2 

Secretary I 2 

Transcriber Typist 43 

Junior Clerk 1 

Clerk Typist 1 

Senior Clerk Typist 2 

Telephone Operator 2 

Senior Legal Process Clerk 2 

Legal Process Clerk 6 

Legal Assistant 1 

Court Alternative Specialist I 2 

102 



cps299/12.89 



TABLE A 



Cost Breakdown 



Permanent Salaries 

Fringes 

Subtotal of Personnel Costs 



Fees and Other Compensations 

Professional Services 

Other Contractual Services 

Training 

Other Services 

Telephone 

Material and Supplies 

Membership Dues 

Rental of Property 

Equipment Purchase 

Police Dept. (use of Wang Word Proc.) 

Central Shop 

Civil Service 

Light, Heat & Power 

Juvenile Court 

Controller ISD 

Reproduction 

Workers Compensation 

Other Costs 

Subtotal for 
Non-Personnel Costs 

Total Costs 



(88-89) (89-90) 

$4,951,444.00 $5,396,528.00 

1.219,120.00 1,279.542.00 

$6,170,564.00 $6,676,070.00 

143,700.00 143,700.00 

6,000.00 6,000.00 

45,000.00 50,000.00 

2,000.00 2,000.00 

6,000.00 6,000.00 

75,400.00 75,400.00 

30,000.00 35,000.00 

200.00 300.00 

485,136.00 511,776.00 

6,000.00 8,000.00 

128,527.00 134,239.00 

15,000.00 9,100.00 

610.00 610.00 

17,220.00 21,000.00 

16,788.00 17,028.00 

3,000.00 3,000.00 

3,000.00 3,000.00 

27,851.00 

26.361.00 7.000.00 

$1,009,942.00 $1,061,004.00 

S7.180.506.00 S7.737.074.00 



cps299/12.89 



8 



3. Budget 

Table B sets forth the rise in the Public Defender budgets 
from Fiscal Year 78-79 to the present. In Fiscal Year 86-87, our 
costs took a sharp rise due to charter-mandated costs and to the 
cost of renting new premises. During Fiscal Year 88-89, the 
office sustained a decrease in its budget of 2.1%. This decrease 
was largely due to the elimination of three attorney positions. In 
Fiscal Year 88-89 the increase reflects the adjustment of salaries 
to the prevailing wages in the various classifications of 
employment. 



cps299/12.89 9 



TABLE B 
Comparative Budgets 1978-89 



Year 


Ad Valorem 


78-79 


Not avail. 


80-81 


2,971,918 


81-82 


3,613,481 


82-83 


4,486,465 


83-84 


5,099,091 


84-85 


5,979,942 


85-86 


6,605,225 


86-87 


6,628,340 


87-88 


7,337,986 


88-89 


7,185,106 


89-90 


7,293,699 



cps299/12.89 10 



4. Program Costs 

Table C represents a salary cost for each program or each 
administrative unit within the Public Defender's Office. 



TABLE C 



Public Defender, Chief Attorney 
and Administration 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Mental Health 

Juvenile 

Research 

Investigation 

TOTAL 



$ 947,921.00 

$2,454,957.00 

1,166,469.00 

418,596.00 

721,216.00 

242,558.00 

724.353.00 
$6,676,070.00 



cps299/12.89 



11 



5. Summary of Caseload 



TABLE D 



Recent Caseloads 





83-84 


84-85 


85-86 


86-87 


87-88 


88-89 


Felonies 














Superior Court 


1,493 


1,338 


1,540 


1,576 


2,114 


5,345 


Municipal Court 


4.152 


4.256 


4.649 


4.977 


5.660 


5.634 




5,645 


5,594 


6,189 


6,553 


7,774 


10,979 


Less cases held 


1.434 


1.073 


1.304 


1.388 


2.041 


4.277 


to answer or 














certified 














TOTAL 


. 4,211 


4,521 


4,885 


5,165 


5,733 


6,702 



Misdemeanors 7,777 9,158 10,630 9,963 8,953 6,653 



Juvenile Cases 



Juveniles 
Adults 

TOTAL 


2,211 

395 

2,606 


2,010 

522 

2,532 


1,927 

869 

2,796 


2,054 

825 

2,879 


2,501 

806 

3,307 


2,419 
2,419 


Mental Health 


4,052 


4,100 


3,546 


5,242 


5,082 


3,461 



cps299/12.89 



12 



III. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS - PUBUC DEFENDER 
AND CHIEF ASSISTANT 

Program Cost $245,952 

Program Goals: 

1. To provide overall leadership 

2. To supervise the expenditure of money and use of 
resources 

3. To supervise the Head Attorneys in their management of 
attorneys and caseloads 

4. To develop policies and procedures 

5. To make appointments for discretionary and civil service 
position 

6. To evaluate the implementation of all office policies and 
duties 

7. To maintain contacts with other city and state agencies 
that affect the work of the Public Defender 

8. To provide public education about the work of the Public 
Defender and the work of the criminal justice system 

9. To insure a high ethical standard in the performance of 
Public Defender duties 

With the elected official, who is the Public Defender, the 
"buck stops here." The ultimate responsibility for the entire 
operation is upon the person of the Public Defender. As such, 
the Public Defender must clearly define the duties and the goals 
of the department and see that these are carried out. 

cps299/12.89 13 



The Chief Attorney is the chief executive officer who assists 
the Public Defender in the development of policies and 
procedures. In addition, the Chief Attorney has direct 
responsibility for the execution of those policies and proceedings. 
The Chief Attorney is the link between policy making and the line 
work of the office. 

A major part of the Public Defender's function is to lobby the 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for the budgetary needs of 
the office. The Public Defender must develop the office budget 
and must work to see that the budget is approved. 

The Public Defender also must educate the public at large 
about the function of the defense attorney in the criminal justice 
system. A large amount of the Public Defender's time is spent 
answering inquiries about critical issues which affect the criminal 
justice system. It is an understatement to say that those issues, 
whether they relate to drunk driving, or to child abuse, or to the 
decisions of the California Supreme Court, are matters of 
passionate debate. 

The Public Defender must have the courage to enter that 
public debate and must provide an informed view, no matter how 
unpopular that view may be. As the National Legal Aid and 
Defender Commentary to Standard 3.5 put it: 



cps299/12.89 14 



. . . (the director of a defense system) 
has a duty in terms of public education 
which, if he fulfills it, will need to give 
him the kind of support that can be 
expected to arise out of the more 
decent instincts of citizens of a society 
dedicated to democracy and fair play. 
If he will approach the community, not 
as an apologist for his performance, 
but as an interpreter and reinterpreter 
of free society's own mandates 
concerning its constitutional guarantees; 
if he will approach this giant jury with 
the same skill that it is hoped that he 
approaches a petit jury, he will not only 
give strength to the foundations and 
structure of his own office but will do 
much to enhance that of the judicial 
process as a whole. 



IV. ADMINISTRATION 

Program Cost: $701,969 
Program Goals: 

1. To provide clerical, secretarial services for the office 

2. To provide data collection 

3. To prepare payroll and process the expenditures for office 
The Administrative Unit is managed by Sharon Christensen, 

the Executive Assistant. The unit consists of five components: 

1. Word Processing (2 legal secretaries, 2 senior clerk 
typists, and 1 clerk typist) 

2. Senior Legal Process Clerks (2 persons) 

3. Legal Process Clerks (8 persons) 

4. Accountant (1 person) 

5. Reception Area Workers (2 telephone operators) 



cps299/12.89 15 



The work of these support personnel is critical to the 
operation of the Public Defender's Office. Without them, the 
lawyers could not function. Just as important, the Administrative 
Unit personnel provide an environment for the clientele and the 
public. If phones are answered, if documents are produced in a 
timely fashion, if the public is treated with courtesy, the work of 
the office will improve. If people are impressed that support 
personnel can effectively handle their questions and problems, the 
public will view the Public Defender's Office as a resource, not 
just another bureaucracy. As public attitude and funding 
correspond to the performance of the office, so the morale of the 
employees of the office corresponds to the public attitude. Good 
morale equals high performance--an equation that yields a net 
positive to the City and the Public Defender's Office. 

V. FELONY UNIT 

Program Cost: $2,454,957 
Program Goals: 

1. To provide effective legal assistance in all felony cases in 
the Municipal and Superior Courts 

2. To decrease the number of cases where the client is held 
to answer for a felony 

3. To decrease the number and length of state prison 
sentences 

4. To reduce felony conflicts 

cps299/12.89 16 



The Felony Unit consists of 34 trial attorneys and 2 
supervisors, Robert Berman and Daro Inouye. The attorneys 
represent felony indigent defendants in the Municipal and Superior 
Court. 

A felony case begins, after an arrest, in the Municipal Court. 
There the District Attorney files a criminal complaint. The 
defendant appears on the complaint; and if the defendant cannot 
afford an attorney, the court will appoint the Public Defender or, 
if there is a conflict of interest, a private attorney. 

After appointment, the Public Defender will advise the 
defendant to enter a plea and will make the appropriate bail 
motion. A date will be scheduled for a preliminary hearing-a 
hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold 
the defendant to answer for trial. 

At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution will present 
evidence to prove that there is probable cause to believe the 
defendant is guilty of the crime. The defense will have the 
opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution's evidence or 
present evidence of their own (which rarely happens). Before the 
preliminary hearing, the defense attorney will be expected to 
investigate the case, interview witnesses, and interview his/her 
own client. 

In many situations, the defense and the prosecution work out 
a disposition to the case. If that entails a plea by the client to 

cps299/12.89 17 



a felony, the plea is "certified" and sent to the Superior Court for 
sentencing. 

If, however, a preliminary hearing is held, and the court 
decides there is enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial, 
the case is sent to the Superior Court and placed on a trial 
calendar after a plea of not guilty. The case will end up in a 
negotiated plea, a trial, or, in few instances, some other 
disposition. 

Motions To Revoke Probation 

In the last few years, a major part of the Public Defender 
workload is representing defendants in motions to revoke 
probation. These motions arise against individuals who were 
previously sentenced and placed on probation. If they break the 
law or if they do not comply with some condition of probation 
(e.g., they do not report to the probation officer), the District 
Attorney or the Probation Department can move to revoke 
probation. 

In thousands of cases every year, individuals who are on 
probation are arrested for a new offense. The District Attorney or 
the Probation Department has the option of moving to revoke 
probation on the basis of the new charge. The District Attorney 
has also the option of filing the motion in lieu of prosecuting the 
new charge. In doing that, the District Attorney gives up the 
possibility of a new conviction, perhaps a concurrent or 

cps299/12.89 18 



consecutive sentence. However, the District Attorney can secure 
the imprisonment of the probationer without a preliminary hearing 
or jury trial, a standard of proof that demands that the case is 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the delay occasioned by 
the preparation for trial. 

Until 1987, these motions to revoke represented a distinct 
minority of cases in the Superior Court. Usually, they were filed 
concurrently with a criminal charge. They have become, however, 
a majority of the unadjudicated cases in the Superior Court. 

Statistical Trends 

The Felony Unit experienced an arduous workload in 1988-89. 
Table E demonstrates the workload through various phases of 
felony activity. 

TABLE E 
Criminal Cases in Public Defender's Office 

Municipal Court Cases 5,634 

Superior Court Cases 

Cases held to answer in Municipal Court 1,242 

Cases where there has been a certified plea 2,131 

Felony motions to revoke 1,383 

Felony sentences 3,373 



cps299/12.89 19 



Perhaps, the best indicator of total Public Defender activity 
is to combine the Muni Court arraignment with motions to revoke 
probation; i.e., in the Superior Court. 



5,634 - Muni Court arraignment 

1.383 - M.T.R. 

7,017 - New Public Defender cases 



Comparing this year's workload against other years, Table F 
sets forth the Muni Court arraignments, the holdings, the certified 
pleas, and the Superior Court sentences. 

TABLE F 
New Public Defender Cases - 1982-83 to Present 





82-83 


83-84 


84-85 


85-86 


86-87 


87-88 


88-89 


Arraigned 


4,152 


5,175 


4,256 


4,649 


4,977 


5,660 


5,634 


Held to Answer 


918 


815 


913 


659 


648 


856 


1,242 


Certified Pleas 


530 


533 


446 


645 


740 


1,182 


2,131 


Sentencing 


1,753 


1,528 


1,338 


1,540 


1,576 


1,916 


3,962 



Average Number of Cases Pending 
Measured on Given Dates 

We measured the caseload of individual attorneys on the 

following dates: 



September 19 
November 9 


35.12 
36.89 


December 1 


40.5 


December 7 


39.7 


January 1 
February 1 
March 29 


32.2 
40.8 
39.25 


May 3 


45.36 


cps299/12.89 


20 



Average Number of Trial Cases Pending Superior Court 
We have consistently measured the trial calendar on a 

weekly basis since 1983. Here are the average trial cases 

pending. 



1983 


1984 


1985 


1986 


1987 


1988 1989 


174.2 


195.21 


195.42 


210 


177.25 


213.09 221.85 
(as of 9/2) 



Our numerical trends are also borne out in the statistical 
findings by the Muni and Superior Court. Table G sets forth the 
available data from the Muni and Superior Courts. 

TABLE G 
All Cases (New) - Muni and Superior Court 

83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 

Arraignments - 5,982 6,550 7,412 7,166 8,806 7,670 
Muni Court* 

Informations - 1,920 1,731 1,582 N/A 1,772 1,812 

Superior Court** 

Certified Pleas 1,129 1,250 1,802 1,929 2,491 3,508 
Superior Court 



* Source: Municipal Court Judicial Council Statistics 
"Source: Clerk, Superior Court 



cps299/ 12.89 21 



Disposition of Felony Cases 

Felony cases are disposed of both in the Municipal and 
Superior Courts. In the Muni Court they are (1) discharged and 
the defendant no longer faces prosecution; (2) the case is 
reduced to a misdemeanor, if the law permits and that is the 
decision of the court and/or the District Attorney; (3) there is a 
plea of guilty to a felony; (4) there is a holding and the case is 
sent to the Superior Court for trial. 

Of the 5,684 cases in the Muni Court, 40% of the cases did 
not reach the Superior Court. 

In the Superior Court, the disposition of cases breaks down 
as follows: 

State Prison Sentences 1,234 
Probation Sentences 2,728 
Dismissals 163 

Trial Activity 

The jury trial represents the most fundamental protection 
against unjust punishment in our system of laws. The jury trial 
stands in the way of a state that would arbitrarily punish or 
oppress an individual. It requires the prosecution to bring forth 
its proof with evidence about the accused's guilt. 

In 1988-89, the felony attorneys in the Public Defender's 
Office tried a total of 91 felony trials. The cases are set forth in 



cps299/12.89 22 



Appendix A. The conviction rate was 17%. Ten of the ninety-one 
cases resulted in acquittals, another ten resulted in hung juries. 

Workload of the Individual Attorney 

The number of cases assigned to the individual attorney is 
based on the ability of the attorney to represent his or her client. 
An attorney assigned too many cases is unable to perform his/her 
duties to the client. The necessary investigation and research 
does not get done. The stress and distraction takes its toll and 
the quality of courtroom advocacy declines. 

National standards have been formulated that attempt to deal 
with the appropriate and maximum numbers of cases that can be 
assigned to a public defender. The American Bar Association 
originally recommended that no more than 100 felony cases be 
given to a lawyer during a year. The A.B.A. abandoned that 
standard and instead allowed managers to make decisions based 
on factors not limited to strict numbers. The National Study 
Commission on Defense Services placed the maximum number 
at 150. 

Although most managers of defender office feel that a 
maximum of 150-175 cases per year is the desirable point, they 
often accede to caseload levels that are over 200 cases. The 
Public Defender felony caseload for the line attorneys averages at 
276 cases per year, 66% more than the recommended maximum 
of the National Study Commission. 

cps299/ 12.89 23 



On a daily basis, Public Defenders carry caseloads that, 
according to computer printouts, average regularly at 40 cases. 
According to long-time deputies, those printouts may understate 
caseloads as much as 30%. 

The point is clear: these caseloads threaten the quality of 
representation in an intolerably severe manner. During the next 
fiscal year, a primary emphasis will be to match more defenders 
to the workload, or to reduce the workload by defining cut-off 
points for the acceptance of appointment by the court. 

VI. MISDEMEANOR UNIT 

Program Cost: $1,166,469 
Program Goal: 

1. To represent indigent defendants competently in 
misdemeanor cases in the Municipal Court 

The Misdemeanor Unit consists of 17 attorneys. There are 
included in that number 15 trial attorneys and two supervisors, 
Robin Levine and Ron Albers. The representation of 
misdemeanor cases - those that carry a penalty of a year or less 
in the County Jail -- is conducted in six trial departments and one 
law and motion department of the Municipal Court. 

The misdemeanor courts deal with an enormous variety of 
offenses - from public drunkenness to burglaries and aggravated 
assaults that could have filed as felonies. By far, the largest 
single category of misdemeanor case is driving under the 

cps299/12.89 24 



influence - a total of 1.802 cases in Fiscal Year 88-89 - and 
approximated 30% of the caseload. 

Disposition of Misdemeanor Caseload 

In Fiscal Year 88-89. trie number of new misdemeanor cases 
and motions to revoke was as follows: 

New Misdemeanor Cases 6,169 

Motions to Revoke 484 

6,653 

In addition, there were 759 cases left unadjudicated in the 
last fiscal year which ciosed in this year. 

Misdemeanor cases are disposed by pleas of guilty, 
conviction after a trial, by dismissals, and by diversion. The 
diversion disposition involves a referral of the case to the 
probation department or a diversion program, without a plea, on 
the condition that the defendant comply with certain requirements 
over a period of time. If the requirements are met, such as 
going to counseling or doing community service, and there are no 
new charges, the charges are dismissed. 

In Fiscal Year 88-89. disposition of misdemeanor cases was: 

Pled Guilty 4,610 

Dismissals (per 1385. 1382, 1381 PC) 895 
Diversion Dismissals 609 

Diversion Referrals 974 



cps299 12.89 25 



Jury Trials 

In Fiscal Year 88-89, the Misdemeanor Unit handled 98 jury 
trials. Of those 98, there were: 

22 acquittals 
14 hung juries 
The cases are set forth in Appendix A. 

Fiscal Year Comparisons 

Table H sets out the fiscal year comparisons between years 
84-85 and the present for new cases. 

TABLE H 

Fiscal Year Comparisons - Public Defender Cases 
84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 

9,158 9,164 8,786 7,866 6,169 

All Misdemeanor Arraignments 
84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 

15,399 15,200 13,417 10,756 9,700 



(Source: Judicial Reports, Municipal Court - A, B, & C 
misdemeanors) 



The steady decrease in misdemeanor cases for the Public 
Defender and for the courts argues for some shift away from the 
present pattern of organization of the Municipal Court. 

cps299/12.89 26 



Specifically, spreading a declining number of misdemeanors 
among six Municipal Courts is a waste of judicial, prosecutorial, 
and defense resources. There is no reason why consolidation of 
at least two of the misdemeanor courts into one cannot take 
place. This would allow the courts to spread the cases among 
the remaining five courts and allow the personnel covering those 
courts to serve the rising felony population. 

VII. JUVENILE UNIT 

Program Cost: $721,216 
Program Goal: 

1. To represent juveniles in delinquency cases and in cases 
where the District Attorney seeks to exclude juveniles 
from the juvenile justice system 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients in the 
Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance Center. The Juvenile Court 
Unit has a staff of five attorneys, including a supervisor, Joseph 
Spaeth. It has a support staff of one social worker, one 
investigator, and three clerical personnel. 

Representation of juveniles involves defending them against 
charges which, if they were adults, would be crimes. In some 
cases the Public Defender will represent children who are charged 
with non-criminal behavior, like truancy or being beyond parental 
control. These are called "status" offenders, and cases are 



cps299/12.89 27 



brought against juveniles under Section 601 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code. 

In certain cases, the District Attorney will attempt, through a 
petition in the Juvenile Court, to exclude a juvenile from the 
juvenile court process and to have the juvenile prosecuted as an 
adult in the adult court system. In deciding whether the juvenile 
should be excluded, the court will look to the nature of the 
offense, the age and sophistication of the juvenile, as well as any 
other relevant information. 

Until September, 1988, the Public Defender represented 
parents in the Juvenile Court, where the Department of Social 
Services attempts to suspend or to terminate the parents' custody 
over their children. However, with the loss of three positions 
from our Fiscal Year 88-89 budget, we were unable to represent 
competently the same number of clients. Since parental-custody 
cases were the only non-mandatory part of our caseload (that is, 
the only one in which we were not required by law to represent 
a client), we felt that we must discontinue representation of 
clients in that area of the law. 

The Public Defender must be a forceful and a zealous 
advocate for the protection of the rights of the juvenile. Juvenile 
cases are adversary proceedings, and the attorney must use all 
of his talents in presenting the factual and the legal defenses on 
behalf of the juvenile client. At the same time, the Public 

cps299/ 12.89 28 



Defender must also be sensitive to the special problems 
confronting a juvenile offender. Attorneys in the juvenile courts 
must be able to identify emotional and educational difficulties and 
to explore the alternative which exist outside of the legal system. 
The lawyers must utilize fully all of the community-based agencies 
which provide social or psychiatric assistance. 

TABLE I 
Juvenile Statistics 
Fiscal Year Comparisons 
1. Caseloads-Public Defender 



Year 


601 602 


707 




300 


Total 




(Delinquency) (Criminal) 


(Removal to (Dependency) 






Adult Juris- 












diction) 








78-79 


127 2,119 


N/A 




225 


2,471 


79-80 


141 1,410 


19 




325 


1,895 


80-81 


145 2,118 


15 




197 


2,475 


81-82 


130 2,470 


12 




202 


2,823 


82-83 


89 2,217 


8 




320 


2,250 


83-84 


30 2,181 







39 


2,250 


84-85 


66 1,944 


5 




522 


2,537 


85-86 


1,927 


2 




869 


2,798 


86-87 


2,054 


1 




825 


2,880 


87-88 


2,501 


2 




806 


3,309 


88-89 


2,415 


4 




— 


2,419 


2. Commitments to CYA-Public Defender Cases 








78-79 — 96 


83-84 — 


86* 






79-80 — 81 


84-85 — 


31 








80-81 — 89 


85-86 -- 


36 








81-82 — 90 


86-87 — 


16 








82-83 — 65 


87-88 -- 
88-89 — 


29 
13 






3. Commitments to Loq Cabin- 


-Public Defender Cases 






79-80 -- 136 


84-85 — 


128 








80-81 — 95 


85-86 — 


130 








81-82 — 102 


86-87 — 


123 








82-83 — 103 


87-88 — 


97 








83-84 — 113 


88-89 — 


126* 







All cases— P.D. and non-P.D. cases. 



cps299/12.89 



29 



Our statistical findings parallel those of the Department of 
Justice and the Judicial Council (see Table J): 

TABLE J 

Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filing (All Cases) 



1. 


Department of Justice: 


Active Juvenile Probation 








Caseload 1972-1988 














1972 - 1,997 


1978 - 


1,119 


1984 - 


1,208 








1973 - 1,956 


1979 - 


1,333 


1985 - 


1,291 








1974 - 2,004 


1980 - 


1,313 


1986 - 


1,287 








1975 - 1,940 


1981 - 


1,259 


1987 - 


1,255 








1976 - 1,837 


1982 - 


1,385 


1988 - 


1,200 








1977 - 1,144 


1983 - 


1,348 








2. 


Judicial Council Reports 


: Juvenile Court Filing 


601 W&l 




Year 


Total 
Filinqs 


Original Subsequent 
Filinqs Filinqs 


Contested 
Matters 


602 W&l 


76-77 


2,355 


1,597 


758 




480 


209 


2,098 


77-78 


2,017 


1,484 


533 




437 


172 


1,815 


78-79 


2,130 


1,467 


653 




516 


93 


2,026 


79-80 


2,116 


1,426 


690 




621 


132 


1,979 


80-81 


1,933 


1,178 


755 




556 


119 


1,456 


81-82 


2,295 


1,388 


907 




530 


87 


1,301 


82-83 


2,356 


1,128 


1,030 




305 


49 


1,254 


83-84 


2,158 


1,278 


1,078 




270 


71 


1,083 


84-85 


1,982 


1,533 


449 




235 


19 


1,518 


85-86 


1,981 


1,618 


363 




221 


16 


1,966 


86-87 


1,730 


998 


732 




262 


34 


1,690 


87-88 


2,032 


988 


1,144 




209 


148 


1,884 



cps299/12.89 



30 



Crack Cocaine 

Like the adult courts, the Juvenile Court is being inundated 
with crack cocaine cases. Juveniles are being brought in as 
accused sellers and users of cocaine. In the last two years, 
there has been a sharp rise in new criminal filings. Table K 
indicates how drugs and crack have made an impact on the 
juvenile system. 



TABLE K 
Filings in the Juvenile System 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 

Juvenile Petitions 2,181 1,932 1,882 1,878 2,138 2,367 

Petition for Drug 101 168 146 194 568 615 

Offenses 

Petitions for Cocaine- 14 29 35 112 495 581 

Related Offenses 

(Source: Juvenile Court) 

The rise in crack cases among juveniles has been 
complemented by a tendency by the police to book rather than 
cite juveniles. Table L sets forth this trend. 



cps299/ 12.89 31 



TABLE L 
Juvenile Bookings and Citations 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 



Bookings 1,557 


2,217 


1,312 


2,224 


2,617 


Citations 3,547 
Total 5,104 


2,879 
5,096 


3,019 
4,331 


3,110 
5,334 


2,584 
5,201 


(Source: Juvenile Court) 











This increase of bookings has resulted in the severest kind 
of overcrowding at the Youth Guidance Center and Log Cabin, in 
the opinion of knowledgeable persons. 

The Big Question 

The big question is whether the present juvenile system is 
accomplishing anything. It has neither the resources to punish in 
any comprehensive way, nor does it have the wherewithal to 
rehabilitate. Although thousands of juveniles are brought into the 
system, few petitions are filed. 

Most youths are sent back to their homes and their file 
stamped "counseled and closed." Worse still, the addicted 
juvenile is not getting the rehabilitative service, is not being 
placed in the rehabilitative setting, and is not being motivated to 
change his or her lifestyle. When the juvenile is incarcerated in 
Log Cabin or at the "cottages" at the Youth Guidance Center, he 



cps299/12.89 32 



or she serves his time and is released to the same streets, in the 
midst of the same groups, and sent back to the same schools. 

President Bush is right to make drugs a national priority. He 
is right also to put money into law enforcement and rehabilitation, 
but the scope of this problem far exceeds the $350,000,000 he 
plans to spend on rehabilitation. If San Francisco is any 
indication, there must be an investment of billions. 

The attack on the problem of drug usage must be directed 
at (1) the physical addiction, (2) re-orientation of value systems, 
(3) education, and (4) the promise of job opportunities. The kid 
who lives in the ghetto and sees drug dealers with money and 
guns sees the only world that he/she knows. It is a ghetto of the 
mind, as well as a physical ghetto. 

The juvenile system struggles on with cops, probation 
officers, counselors, judges, and defenders. It, in a sporadic and 
random way, attempts to bring the rule of law to youth. But the 
system is almost a parody of itself. Because it cannot afford to 
punish in any major way, its raison d'etre as a deterrent system 
cannot be justified. Because it cannot afford to rehabilitate, its 
service apparatus has been a pathetic showcase, something out 
of an Evelyn Waugh story. 

We must save our youth. There is no more important task, 
not locally, not nationally. No society that is productive or stable 
can afford a nation with some free and some slaves of drugs or 

cps299/ 12.89 33 



anything else. We cannot afford to write off a part of our 
population, because the task of rehabilitation is difficult and 
expensive. 

VIII. MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 
Program Cost: $418,596 
Program Goals: 

1. To represent those alleged to be mentally ill in 
conservatorship proceedings 

2. To represent the retarded in progress related to their 
treatment and placement 

3. To represent the insane in proceedings for the restoration 
of their sanity 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney in the 
community for the mentally ill. Most of the work of the Mental 
Health Unit is done in the defense of petitions to establish mental 
health conservatorships pursuant to Section 5500 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code. This conservatorship petition is the legal 
procedure for establishing judicial control over a person who is 
alleged to be a danger to himself or others or who is gravely 
disabled to the extent of lacking the ability to provide food, 
shelter, and care for himself/herself. If the petition is granted, an 
individual may be placed in a state hospital or in a local facility, 
whichever the court deems appropriate. 



cps299/12.89 34 



In these cases, the Public Defender is appointed to 
represent the proposed conservatee. As the attorney for the 
proposed conservatee, the Public Defender must review the 
medical reports, witnesses' statements, and explore alternative 
placement if the client contests the hearing. 

The Mental Health Unit also represents mentally-ill clients 
who have been sent to state hospitals. These involve 
conservatees committed under Section 5500 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code who have a right to periodic review of their 
status and their treatment, clients who have been found 
incompetent to stand trial under Sections 1368-70 of the Penal 
Code, those who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity 
under Section 1027 of the Penal Code, mentally disordered sex 
offenders pursuant to Section 6300 of the Welfare and Institutions 
Code, and mentally retarded dangerous persons under Section 
6500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

These clients must be regularly visited and interviewed. If 
the state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation for a 
patient, the Public Defender must bring that fact to the attention 
of the court. If it is necessary, a jury trial may be held to 
determine whether or not a person should be kept in a state 
hospital or whether or not his/her parole should be revoked. 



cps299/12.89 35 



TABLE M 

Statistics - Mental Health-7/1/88 - 6/30/89 

14-Day Certifications 1261 

Writs of Habeas Corpus Filed 291 

Granted 35 

Denied 92 

Withdrawn 164 

New Conservatorships 858 

Granted 252 

Denied 606 

Total Appearances 11 09 

Conservatorship Renewals 651 

Granted 477 

Denied 174 

Total Appearances 949 

5300 Petitions (Dangerous) 4 

Granted 1 

Denied 1 

Withdrawn 1 

Renewed Petitions 1 

Total Appearances 13 

Rehearings 72 

Released 15 

Held 36 

Request Withdrawn 21 
Total Appearances 124 

Medical Consents (LPS Conservatees) 30 

Granted 27 

Denied 3 

Total Appearances 74 



cps299/ 12.89 36 



Electroshock Hearings 
Granted 
Denied 
Total Appearances 



11 



23 



Miscellaneous (Progress Reports; 
Change of Conservator, etc.) 

Placements Hearings 

Placement Change Ordered 
Placement Remained 
Total Appearances 209 



7 
4 



57 
51 



Developmental^ Disabled 
Probate Conservatorships 
Probate Code 3200 (Medical Consents) 
TOTAL CIVIL CASES 



57 
108 



5 

1 
27 



3376 



Penal Code 1026.5 
Granted 
Denied 

Penal Code 1026.2(e) 
Granted 
Denied 
Withdrawn 

Penal Code 1026.2 
Restored 
Denied 
Withdrawn 

Penal Code 1600 Hearings 

Special DMH Privilege Hearings 

Pending 1026 Cases 

Total Appearances 213 

TOTAL CRIMINAL CASES 



13 



8 
3 
5 



4 
3 
4 



13 



16 



11 



29 
16 



85 



cps299/12.89 



37 



DC RESEARCH UNIT 

Program Cost: $242,558 
Program Goals: 

1. To prepare writs and appeals, motions, jury instructions, 
and memoranda of law as requested by Office personnel 

2. To answer Office attorneys' legal questions 

3. To provide technical assistance for deputies undertaking 
their own writs and appeals 

4. To provide training sessions in legal practice, legal 
research, and computer literacy 

5. To keep trial deputies informed of recent legal 
developments through newsletters and memos 

6. To update and maintain a Brief and Documents Bank for 
research purposes 

7. To update and maintain a library of commonly-used forms 
and documents 

8. To acquire, organize, and maintain legal publications 
contained in the Office Library 

9. To supervise the maintenance and acquisition of the 
Office's computer equipment 

10. To formulate and develop an information systems plan for 

the Office 
The Research Unit is located on the second floor and 
encompasses the Unit's Computer Room and the Library. Head 

cps299/12.89 38 



Attorney Grace L. Suarez supervises a staff consisting of one 
attorney and one paralegal. The physical plant contains six 
computers, five printers, and one scanner. The computers are 
used both by Unit personnel and by the Office's attorneys and 
contain copies of the Office's entire forms library. The Library 
contains several hundred case and practice books, a microfiche 
reader-printer, and a copy machine, as well as a Briefs and 
Documents Bank containing several hundred documents. One 
computer has access through a modem to the Westlaw 
computerized research system and the California Public 
Defenders' Association C.L.A.R.A. system. 
In Fiscal year 1988-89, Unit personnel: 

1) Prepared writs, motions, memos, and other documents in 
response to 184 formal requests. 

2) Answered over 1,500 oral requests for information. 

3) Briefed two cases resulting in published opinions: 
Johnson v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1093 and Bruner 
v. Municipal Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1193. 

4) Organized 1989 Criminal Law Training Series - 12 hours 
of training accredited by State Bar of California. 

5) Organized two-hour State Bar-accredited lecture on new 
laws. 

6) Lectured at training sessions for misdemeanor deputies. 

7) Organized Westlaw training sessions. 

cps299/12.89 39 



8) Organized and led computer training sessions, both in- 
house and at End-User Computing. 

9) Developed a specialized computer training manual and a 
Public Defender Office Computer Manual. 

10) Supervised installation of seven new Compaq computers, 
and transfer of Wang computers to other personnel. 

11) Co-edited and updated the Misdemeanor Procedure 
Manual. 

12) Continued to publish an improved monthly newsletter 
with case summaries, and issued semi-yearly compilations. 

13) Updated and maintained the Briefs and Documents Bank 
and its computer-based index. 

14) Issued approximately 20 memos on current legal issues. 

15) Developed and maintained a computerized database of 
the Office's electronic equipment. 

16) Prepared the annual Information Systems Master Plan. 
The work of the Unit enhances the quality of the trial 

attorney's representation. Trial practitioners can submit well- 
researched and drafted motions and seek pretrial writ relief within 
hours of the motion's denial. Attorneys can keep up with the 
torrent of new cases published every year and feel confident that 
the advice they give is based upon an understanding of the most 
current law. 



cps299/ 12.89 40 



X. INVESTIGATION UNIT 
Program Cost: $724,353 
Program Goals: 

1. To obtain information about the facts and circumstances 
regarding the cases of the individual clients represented 
by the Public Defender 

2. To provide necessary support services to attorneys in 
furtherance of the representation of those cases 

The Investigative Unit consists of 10 investigators and 3 clerks 

and is supervised by Principal Attorney, Robert Evans. The Unit 

carries out investigation for Felony, Misdemeanor, and Mental 

Health Units. In Fiscal Year 1988-89 the Unit conducted the 

following work for the Misdemeanor and Felony Units. 

Requests Interviews Subpoenas 

Misdemeanor 298 535 323 

Felony 744 2.712 1.295 

1,042 3,247 1,618 

An investigator starts working on a case when an attorney 

makes a written request. The request may ask that a witness be 

located and interviewed, that the crime scene be photographed, 

and/or that a document be located. A suspense date is set for 

the completion of the investigation. Supplementary requests may 

be made. The same investigator will be assigned to the case 

throughout the life of the case. 



cps299/12.89 41 



Solid and competent investigation is absolutely essential to 
effective representation. It can literally win the case for the 
lawyer. It can provide the exculpatory evidence which proves a 
client's innocence. It can find those facts which contradict the 
prosecutor's case. 

Offices simply cannot afford to neglect adequate and 

professionalized defense services. As the 1976 Commission on 

Defense Services stated: 

Criminal investigation is an essential 
element of criminal defense. Offices 
lacking adequate investigative staff tend 
to neglect the investigative function and 
rely on the state's version of witness 
statements and other evidence. It is 
not cost-effective for lawyers to do all 
of the investigation connected with a 
case. Moreover, where lawyers conduct 
investigations, it may be necessary to 
have an investigator along to refute 
charges of impropriety and to have a 
witness who can testify at trial if 
necessary. 

Secondly, since investigation is 
increasingly becoming a professional 
skill requiring professional expertise, 
investigators should be hired who have 
the professional skills required. 
Professional investigators greatly 
improve the overall quality of service in 
a defender office. 

In order to ensure that investigations 
are conducted in every case where 
there is a factual question not subject 
to objective determination, an adequate 
attorney-investigator ratio is necessary. 
At least one investigator should be 



cps299/12.89 42 



employed for every three staff 
attorneys. This figure is based upon 
the experience of defenders from coast 
to coast. (At p. 333.) 



XI. OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST 
1 . Conflicts 

The Public Defender is required to represent all persons 
accused of crimes who do not have enough money for their 
counsel. However, cases arise where the Public Defender cannot 
represent an accused who does not have funds for his own 
counsel. For example, there may be more than one person 
charged in a case, and the Public Defender can only represent 
one person. In that case, the Public Defender declares a conflict- 
of-interest; and a separate, private attorney will be appointed. 
Conflicts can arise also where a public defender client becomes 
a witness against another public defender client. In that case, 
one or the other will have to have separate non-public defender 
counsel. 

We have sought to limit declarations of conflict-of- 
interest to those situations required by law and ethics, in 
multiple defendant cases, we usually represent the "heaviest" 
defendant-the one whose case requires the most work. 

Conflict costs are expensive. What is more, a Public 
Defender that shies away from serious cases by finding a 
farfetched reason for a conflict does a disservice to his statutory 

cps299/12.89 43 



responsibilities. The following table states the number of conflict 
cases, as well as the costs, over the last several years. 







TABLE N 








Conflict Cases 




Conflict Costs 






Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 


Total 


82-83 
83-84 
84-85 
85-86 
86-87 
87-88 
88-89 


605,822 

600,719 

508,893 

1,064,647 

921,935 

1,029,190 

1,143,933 


794,992 
840,201 
968,707 
1,080,848 
1,383,426 
1,545,164 
2,310,460 


1,400,814 
1,440,920 
1,477,602 
2,145,495 
2,305,361 
2,574,354 
3,454,393 



Number of Conflict Cases 



Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 


82-83 


2,096 


1,111 


83-84 


1,532 


1,025 


84-85 


1,432 


787 


85-86 


2,417 


1,460 


86-87 


2,007 


1,841 


87-88 


2,465 


2,373 


88-89 


3,220 


3,858 



Total 

3,207 
2,557 
2,219 
3,877 
3,848 
4,836 
7,078 



cps299/12.89 44 



2. Volunteer Attorneys-Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 
For over ten years, the Public Defender's Office has 
benefited from the volunteer participation of Pillsbury, Madison & 
Sutro and Morrison & Foerster. Recently, our volunteer staff has 
been joined by members of the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White 
& McAuliffe. For stints up to six months, an attorney from one of 
the nation's most prestigious firms works in our office handling 
misdemeanor and felony cases. The quality of their work has 
been outstanding, reflecting the excellence and public spirit of 
their firm and themselves individually. We all owe a great vote of 
thanks to these fine lawyers. 

Recent volunteer attorneys have included: 
Pillsbury. Madison & Sutro 
Christopher Ball 
Paula Levitan 
Charles Novack 
Robert Phelps 
Laurie Robertson 
Lisa Saveri 
Paula Weber 
Morrison and Foerster 
Paul Friedman 
Jody Jakosa 



cps299/12.89 45 



Heller. Ehrman. White & McAullffe 
Jeffrey Leon 
Charles Robinson 

3. Affirmative Action 

Affirmative Action continues to represent a major goal for 
1989-90. The Office of the Public Defender represents in great 
number individuals from minority backgrounds. The presence of 
attorneys from ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds of the 
client community assists the lawyer-client relationship by 
developing more a relationship of trust. It is also an important 
statement to this office's commitment to equal opportunity. At 
the present time, 39.6% 7 of the lawyers are of minority ethnic 
groups, and 47.6% are women. In addition, this office has a 
substantial presence of Gay and Lesbian attorneys. In 1989-90, it 
will be our intention to increase minority presence in this office, 
and we are confident that we can do it. Although the Civil 
Service Commission has determined that we are in compliance 
with workforce standards 8 , we are determined to make this office 
even more representative of the community. 



7 (Black attorneys, 6; Hispanic, 8; Asian, 10; Other, 1. Please note, percentages indicated are based on the sixty 
three attorneys on staff as of the date of this writing, 12126)89). 

a The total data for attorneys meets "Lawyer' labor force availability for San Frandsco" (Letter of Nancy Yokoyama 
Woo to Jeff Brown, dated December 12, 1985). 



cps299/12.89 46 



1. Misdemeanors 



2. Felonies 



APPENDIX A 



Jury Trials 



Acquittals 22 

Hung Juries 14 

Total 98 



Acquittals 10 

Hung Juries 10 

Total 91 



47 



APPENDIX B 



Workload and Activity of Municipal and Superior Courts 



1. Certified Pleas 



1978-79 


314 


1979-80 


390 


1980 


375 


1980-81 


462 


1981 


880 


1981-82 


822 


1982 


1,215 


1982-83 


1,649 


1983 


1,065 


1983-84 


1,111 


1984 


1,208 


1984-85 


1,400 


1985 


1,579 


1985-86 


1,563 


1986 


1,651 


1986-87 


1,929 


1987-88 


2,564 


1988-89 


3,449 



2. Persons Accused of Felony Cases 
in Municipal Court 



1978-79 

1979-80 

1980 

1980-81 

1981-82 

1982 

1982-83 

1983 

1983-84 

1984 

1984-85 

1985 

1985-86 

1986 

1986-87 

1987-88 

1988-89 



6,038 
6,629 
6,345 
6,415 
7,708 
7,235 
6,964 
6,717 
5,982 
6,014 
6,550 
7,311 
7,412 
7,137 
7,166 
8,806 
7,670 



(Source: Judicial Council) 



(Source: Judicial Council 
Reports of Municipal Court) 



48 



3. Persons Accused of Non-Traffic Misdemeanors 






in Municipal 


Court 






1979-80 


15,131 


1985 


15,495 


1980 


17,510 


1985-86 


15,206 


1980-81 


14,322 


1986 


14,656 


1981-82 


20,091 


1986-87 


13,417 


1982 


18,276 


1987-88 


11,172 


1982-83 


14,418 


1988-89 


12,985 


1983 


11,563 






1983-84 


12,281 






1984 


13,831 






1984-85 


15,399 







(Source: Judicial Council Reports of Municipal Court) 



4. Arrests for Opiates 





1987 


1988 


1989 


January 


506 


765 


886 


February 


368 


682 


871 


March 


228 


980 


930 


April 


417 


815 


776 


May 


472 


789 


606 


June 


446 


788 


606 


July 


457 


741 


626 


August 


508 


807 


811 


September 




848 


700 


October 




832 


484 


November 




881 


469 


December 




797 





49 



5. Public Defender Cases Pending in Superior Court for Trial 



1983 1984 



1/3 


160 


1/1 


186 


1/15 


164 


1/15 


163 


2/15 


166 


2/16 


187 


3/1 


165 


3/16 


218 


3/15 


147 


4/16 


218 


4/4 


150 


6/1 


190 


4/21 


169 


6/16 


182 


5/1 


178 


7/1 


177 


5/15 


170 


7/16 


173 


6/1 


160 


8/1 


193 


6/19 


155 


8/16 


191 


7/1 


158 


8/31 


204 


7/16 


152 


9/16 


217 


8/1 


166 


10/16 


190 


9/1 


187 


11/1 


210 


9/15 


210 


11/16 


230 


10/1 


174 


12/16 


199 


10/15 


218 






11/1 


187 


Av: 


195.21 


11/16 


204 






12/1 


205 






12/15 


189 






Av: 


174.2 







50 



1985 1986 



1/16 


232 


1/1 


208 


2/1 


236 


2/1 


230 


2/16 


225 


2/16 


263 


3/1 


227 


3/1 


296 


3/15 


210 


4/1 


285 


4/16 


197 


4/19 


259 


5/1 


213 


4/21 


254 


5/16 


206 


4/28 


246 


7/16 


160 


5/2 


236 


8/1 


147 


5/12 


247 


9/1 


128 


5/19 


207 


10/1 


178 


5/26 


292 


10/15 


185 


6/2 


184 


11/1 


201 


6/9 


200 


11/16 


191 


6/15 


200 


12/1 


193 


8/16 


172 


12/16 


194 


8/25 


164 






9/1 


159 


Av: 


195.47 


9/15 


161 






9/23 


167 






9/30 


167 






10/10 


202 






10/16 


199 






11/2 


206 






11/22 


200 






12/1 


196 






12/6 


202 






12/13 


197 






1/6 


183 






Av. 


210 



51 



1987 1988 



2/1 


200 


1/4 


246 


2/14 


181 


1/11 


255 


3/28 


176 


1/18 


241 


4/4 


178 


1/25 


234 


4/20 


179 


2/1 


233 


5/2 


185 


2/8 


233 


6/1 


130 


2/15 


233 


6/17 


134 


3/8 


258 


6/27 


119 


3/28 


247 


7/13 


118 


4/16 


255 


7/18 


129 


4/18 


255 


7/25 


144 


4/25 


253 


8/1 


152 


6/13 


227 


8/9 


167 


6/27 


233 


8/17 


174 


7/25 


260 


8/24 


182 


7/27 


255 


8/31 


172 


8/22 


259 


9/8 


186 


8/29 


269 


9/21 


188 


9/5 


237 


10/5 


195 


9/12 


202 


10/12 


206 


9/19 


202 


10/26 


206 


9/28 


180 


11/2 


207 


10/1 


195 






10/7 


203 


Av: 


177.25 


10/14 


203 






10/19 


187 






10/21 


183 






10/22 


187 






10/26 


200 






10/28 


191 






10/29 


187 






11/1 


197 






11/9 


196 






11/12 


196 






11/18 


203 






11/23 


198 






11/26 


197 






12/1 


214 






12/14 


198 






12/16 


196 






12/19 


196 






12/23 


199 






12/28 


204 



52 



1989 



1/4 


202 


10/11 


237 


1/7 


202 


10/16 


238 


1/14 


207 


10/20 


235 


1/21 


198 


10/21 


236 


1/28 


193 


10/25 


238 


2/1 


202 


10/27 


245 


2/10 


182 


10/28 


250 


2/11 


207 


11/3 


243 


2/15 


208 


11/15 


236 


2/17 


215 


11/17 


228 


2/18 


221 


11/18 


217 


2/22 


215 


11/22 


215 


2/24 


218 


11/24 


211 


2/25 


222 


11/25 


206 


3/5 


222 


11/29 


209 


3/22 


200 


12/3 


211 


3/31 


195 


12/8 


215 


4/5 


193 


12/16 


209 


4/7 


207 


12/20 


213 


4/8 


212 


12/23 


208 


4/15 


219 


12/27 


205 


4/19 


232 


12/29 


209 


4/26 


233 


12/30 


207 


5/3 


247 






5/19 


257 




Av: 227.89 


5/24 


266 






5/31 


262 






6/14 


264 






6/23 


260 






7/5 


254 






7/8 


248 






7/22 


247 






7/28 


244 






8/4 


251 






8/5 


240 






8/9 


241 






8/12 


232 






8/23 


241 






8/26 


269 






9/2 


271 






9/20 


247 






9/30 


242 







53 



6. Public Defender Cases Going to Superior Court 



bv Holdinqs or Certified 


Pleas 


Cert 




Month 


HTA 


Total 


'87 July 


102 


81 


183 


August 


98 


83 


181 


September 


96 


129 


225 


October 


121 


109 


230 


November 


112 


92 


204 


December 


105 


135 


240 


'88 January 


104 


117 


221 


February 


100 


123 


223 


March 


119 


151 


270 


April 


102 


161 


263 


May 


97 


185 


282 


June 


140 


177 


317 


July 


122 


151 


273 


August 


107 


194 


301 


September 


90 


179 


269 


October 


95 


173 


268 


November 


95 


195 


290 


December 


81 


198 


279 


'89 January 


86 


182 


268 


February 


87 


158 


245 


March 


99 


221 


320 


April 


131 


162 


293 


May 


134 


192 


326 


June 


94 


192 


286 


July 


116 


102 


218 


August 


133 


158 


291 


September 


97 


160 


257 


October 


123 


150 


273 



54 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



1989-90 FISCAL YEAR 



ANNUAL REPORT 



<? 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



DOCUMENT* OCPT. 

smsss 









TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Office Mission 2 

Jurisdiction 2 

Office Structure, Staff, Budget and Workload 3 

Office Structure 3 

Budget 4 

Program Costs 6 

Felony Unit 9 

Misdemeanor Unit 14 

Juvenile Unit 16 

Mental Health Unit 19 

Research Unit 23 

Investigative Unit 25 

Other Matters of Interest 26 

Conflicts 26 

Volunteer Attorneys 29 

Death Penalty Funding 30 

Proposition 115 32 

Affirmative Action 33 

Training 34 



- i 



TABLES Page 

Table A - Comparative Budgets 1980-1991 5 

Table B - Program Costs 6 

Table C - Recent Caseloads 8 

Table D - Felony Cases in the Public Defender's Office 19 

Table F - Fiscal Year Comparisons - Public Defender 

New Misdemeanor Cases 15 

Table G - Public Defender Juvenile Caseload 18 

from FY 78-79 to FY 89-90 

Table H - Mental Health Statistics 36 

Table I - Conflict Cases - Costs and Number 28 

Table J - Training 36 



ii - 



INTRODUCTION 

This Annual Report is a statement of the work of the Public 
Defender's Office. It is a description of the jurisdiction of the 
office and a record of the expenditures, programs, program costs, 
and performance objectives for this department of city 
government. 

The Public Defender represents people charged with crimes 
who do not have money to hire their own lawyers. The Public 
Defender also represents juveniles, persons involved in mental 
health guardianships and conservatorships. Twenty thousand such 
people are represented every year. To carry out that 
responsibility, the Public Defender has 71 lawyers and 37 support 
personnel. 

The Public Defender is responsible for seeing that each client 
is fully and competently represented. This requires the Public 
Defender to provide each client with a defense that works to the 
maximum legal advantage of that client. Whatever the Public 
Defender's status as a public officer, the Public Defender's primary 
duty and loyalty is to the client, no matter how grievous the 
charges are and no matter how strong the evidence against that 
person is. 

The San Francisco Public Defender is elected: one of the 
few in this country. With that status comes certain 



responsibilities. As an elected official, the Public Defender is 
accountable to the public in terms of the quality of his 
administration. This Summary of the Annual Report is presented 
to the public pursuant to that responsibility. 

OFFICE MISSION 

The overall goals of the Public Defender are: 

1. To insure that each defendant receives competent and 
zealous representation 

2. To maintain the highest professional and ethical standards 
on the part of each member of the department 

3. To insure that the delivery of legal services be as 
economical as possible without sacrificing the quality of 
those services 

4. To maintain public respect for the public defender as an 
institution and the criminal justice system 

JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender is created by the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco. The Charter provides that the 
Public Defender will represent persons who have been charged 
with criminal offenses and who are without funds to pay for a 
privately-retained lawyer. 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the Charter, the 
California Government Code also authorizes counties, such as San 



Francisco, to establish public defender offices. The Government 
Code sets forth the types of cases which can be handled by a 
County Public Defender. These include: 

(1) Criminal cases upon request of the defendant or by 
appointment of the court 

(2) Contempt cases 

(3) Appeals 

(4) Actions for the collection of wages or other demands 
against a person for under one hundred dollars 

(5) Defense of individuals in civil litigation where a 
person is being harassed or persecuted 

(6) Cases involving mental health guardianships and 
conservatorships 

(7) Juvenile cases 

Additionally, the Welfare and Institutions Code provides for 
the right of parents to be represented by appointed counsel 
where their parental custody is being challenged. 

OFFICE STRUCTURE, STAFF, BUDGET, AND WORKLOAD 
Office Structure 

There are seven administrative units in the Public Defender's 
Office. Six of these seven relate directly to legal representation 
and are under the direction of supervising attorneys. These 
include: 



(1) Misdemeanor Unit: 17 attorneys in T Municipal 
Courts. 

(2) Felony Unit: 36 attorneys in both the Municipal 
Court (Felony Division) and in the Superior Court. 

(3) Mental Health Unit: 3 attorneys, 2 investigators. 

(4) Juvenile Unit: 10 attorneys, 1 investigator, 3 social 
workers, 3 clerical-secretarial personnel. 

(5) Research Unit: 2 attorneys and 1 paralegal. 

(6) Investigative Unit: 1 principal attorney as supervisor, 
10 investigators, 3 clerks. 

(7) Administrative Unit: 1 executive assistant, 1 accounts 
coordinator, 15 clerical personnel. 

Budget 

Table A sets forward the budgets of the Public Defender's 
Office since Fiscal Year 1980-91. This year the Public Defender 
increased 11.3% over the last fiscal year. The increase was due 
to two factors: (1) a 5.7% increase in salaries, mandated by Civil 
Service and the Charter, (2) the addition of five juvenile 
dependency lawyers, plus a social worker to assist them. In 
1988, because of budget cuts, the Public Defender discontinued 
juvenile dependency representation. With this additional staff, we 
will take on the representation of over 1,000 cases, which 



' Effective 71 1/90, the number of full-time misdemeanor departments mas reduced from 
seven to six. However, our Misdemeanor Division continues to staff the seventh 
department part-time with regard to the pre-July, 1990 cases that remain unresolved. 



previously would have been handled by private-appointed counsel 
at greater cost to the City. 

TABLE A 

Comparative Budgets 1980-91 



Year 


Budqet 


80-81 


$2,971,918 


81-82 


$3,613,481 


82-83 


$4,486,465 


83-84 


$5,099,091 


84-85 


$5,979,942 


85-86 


$6,605,225 


86-87 


$6,628,340 


87-88 


$7,141,891 


88-89 


$7,076,428 


89-90 


$7,734,074 


90-91 


$8,610,141 



Program Costs 

Table B sets forth the cost of each of the program areas of 
Public Defender work. The cost is represented by the salary and 
fringe cost of personnel working in those program areas. 



TABLE B 

Administration, Support, and Clerical $ 989,084.00 

Felony Representation 2,576,902.00 

Misdemeanor Representation 1,224,443.00 

Mental Health 439,400.00 

Juvenile 1 ,309,623.00 2 

Juvenile Delinquency 842,240. 00 3 

Juvenile Dependency 350,413.00 

Research 254,613.00 

Investigation 761 .794.00 

TOTAL $8,748,512.00 



2 * 3 Includes $95, 180 of money not included in Public Defender Budget but under a 
state grant carried by Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. 



Table C represents the caseload data of the Public 
Defender's Office for the last several fiscal years. Most 
conspicuous is the rise in the felony caseloads during Fiscal Year 
88-89 and Fiscal Year 89-90. This has been the result of a large 
influx of drug cases and a large number of motions to revoke in 
the Superior Court by the District Attorney. We will discuss this 
more particularly in the section on felony representation, but it is 
important to say it has added a new dimension to our workload. 

The decreases in mental health work arose from our decision 
to no longer represent all persons in mental health probable 
cause hearings. That action was taken in the face of budget cuts 
in 1988. 



o 
o> 

oS 

00 



IOO> 
l»- CM 



3fc 


00 


3 


s 


*■ 


Oi- 


00 


1— 


T~ 


in 


T^CO 


IC 


00 


cm" 


CO 



00 

oo 

00 



»* co r»» n 
cocoIocmJ 



CM 

o 

CO 



co en j- 

8i- CO 
CO cm" CO 



00 
00 

ti 

00 




CO 
CO 

in 



CO 

to 
o> 

00 



r- CM 

O 00 

U) o 

CM IO 



s 

§ s 

! 

DC 



00 

CO 
00 



CO 
00 

•A 

00 



CO h« CO 00 

r» h- in oo 
in olio CO 

t-"^CD"t- 



S 



IO 



s 

CO 

oT 



IO 

o 
cm" 



5! 

CM 
IO 




IO 


o 


h» 


CO 


00 


s 


CM 


«» 


00 


o> 


IO 










<!* 


o 


T" 


CO 



00 



IO 
00 

00 



00 CO 
CO IO 
CO CM 



^■co 


0>h> 


mo 




IOi- 


■ 



CM 
IO 

^" 



CO o o 

IO T- O 

i- O i- 

CO CM *f 



00 

CO 
00 




T- 


N. 


■^ 


CM 


^ 


r- 


T— 


IO 


CM 


h- 


CM 


o 


^ 


hT 


cm" 


*f 



CO 

3 
1 

1 



3 O 
OO 

S.S. ]w 

■Co ° a> 

= 1 

coS 



slg 

fflt 
.c a> 

co° 
co o 



co£ 

CO CO 

a> c 
-i co 



^ -- s 
1 

3 

S 



0) 

3 



FELONY UNIT 

The Felony Unit consists of 34 trial attorneys and 2 
supervisors, Robert Berman and Daro Inouye. The attorneys 
represent felony indigent defendants in the Municipal and Superior 
Court. 

A felony case begins, after an arrest, in the Municipal Court. 
There the District Attorney files a criminal complaint. The 
defendant appears on the complaint; and if the defendant cannot 
afford an attorney, the court will appoint the Public Defender or, 
if there is a conflict of interest, a private attorney. 

Possible dispositions of felony cases in the Municipal Court 
are participation in a drug diversion program, guilty pleas to 
misdemeanors or felonies, and dismissals. 

If, however, a preliminary hearing is held, and the court 
decides there is enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial, 
the case is sent to the Superior Court and placed on a trial 
calendar after a plea of not guilty. The case will end up in a 
negotiated plea, a trial, or, in few instances, some other 
disposition. 

Motions To Revoke Probation 

In the last few years, a major part of the Public Defender 
workload is representing defendants in motions to revoke 
probation. These motions arise against individuals who were 
previously sentenced and placed on probation. If they break the 



law or if they do not comply with some condition of probation 
(e.g., they do not report to the probation officer), the District 
Attorney or the Probation Department can move to revoke 
probation on the basis of the new charge or violation. The 
District Attorney gives up the possibility of a new conviction. 
However, the District Attorney can secure the imprisonment of the 
probationer without a preliminary hearing or jury trial, a standard 
of proof that demands that the case is proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt. 

Until 1987, these motions to revoke represented a distinct 
minority of cases in the Superior Court. Usually, they were filed 
concurrently with a criminal charge. They have become, however, 
a majority of the unadjudicated cases in the Superior Court. 

Trial Activity 

The jury trial represents the most fundamental protection in 
our system of laws against unjust punishment. The jury trial 
stands in the way of a state that would arbitrarily punish or 
oppress an individual. It requires the prosecution to bring forth 
its proof with evidence of the accused's guilt. 

In 1989-90, the felony attorneys in the Public Defender's 
Office tried a total of 95 felony trials. The acquittal rate was 14%. 



10 



Thirteen of the 95 cases resulted in acquittals, another 11 resulted 
in hung juries. 4 

Statistical Trends and Outcomes 
Increased Sentencing 

Table E indicates the overall workload and dispositions of 
Public Defender cases from 1982-83 to 1989-90. What is 
noticeable is the increase of sentences in 1988-89 and particularly 
in 1989-90. This sharp increase is the result of the District 
Attorney's policy decision to file motions to revoke in lieu of new 
prosecutions. This, coupled with the influx of drug cases, has 
caused sentences to increase 180% over the amount in 1986-87. 

Increased State Prison Sentences 

In Fiscal Year 1989-90, the Superior Court disposition of 
cases was as follows: 

State Prison 1,711 

Probation 1,922 

Dismissed 108 

State prison commitments represent 45.5% of our Superior 

Court dispositions. This rate again is the product of the District 

Attorney's increased use of motions to revoke probation against 

persons currently on probation. The motion which asserts a 



4 Hung juries are juries which cannot agree on a verdict during their deliberations. A 
mistrial is then declared, and the case is set for a re-trial. 

11 



violation of probation based on a new arrest allows the District 
Attorney to seek a state prison disposition with a relaxed standard 
of proof and without a trial before a jury. 

Workload 

Although by the end of the fiscal year the workload 
cumulative figure indicated a very high workload, there is some 
evidence of a decrease in sight. 

All of our best indicators pointed to a drop. The average 
caseload per attorney measured in April and in July evidenced a 
drop. The number of cases on the trial calendar throughout 1990 
was substantially less than in the last few years, and the intake of 
felony cases reverted to pre-"war on drugs" levels with regard to 
the number of crack cocaine cases. 

These indices were clearly the product of the end of San 
Francisco's undercover operation against crack users and buyers. 



12 



«* 


CO 


£ 


ym 


CD 


r* 


o> 


ID 


<» 


o> 


f* 


00 


CM 


^ 


*» 


CM 


l>» 


IO 














IO 




IO 


T~ 


*• 


^ 



a 

r 



O) 

c 
•c 

CO 



c 

I 
s 

Q. 



1 » 
3 | 

CO 
3 O 



3 
O 

o 

1 



■3 
O 

t* 

CO 

o 



C 

3 



111 



i 

(0 

c 

CO 



2 

CO 



8 



o> 



2 



2 co 

<3 3 

CO 

i 

3 
(0 



c 




CO 




CO 




jQ 


CO 




JC 


CO 


o 


CO 


> 


£ 


£ 


2 


o 


CO 


*- 


■C 


CO 


** 


c 


CO 


o 


k. 




CO 


■s 


1 


E 


CO 


>. 


CO 


c 


CO 


o 


CO 


.« 





a 


ts 


T— 


CO 


CO 




OJ 


*» 


o> 


r«. 


*■ 




C* 


* 


CM 


r^ 


IO 




CO 


IO 






^~ 




CO 


*f 


CM 


^» 


CM 




CO 


s 


*■ 


CO 


CO 




co 


CM 


^ 


0> 




00 


IO 




CM 


co" 


Si 


CO 
CO 


s 


CO 
IO 


CM 
00 


co 


li 


CO 


00 




CO 


£ 


CO 


io 




^» 


T- 


0. 












o 












** 












? 


00 




3 


§ 


co 




co 


CO 


CO 


r* 


IO 


§> 


00 


*r" 






T^ 


^ 












1 

CO 












Si 
B 


CO 
00 

IO 


CO 
CO 


o> 


CO 


9 

IO 




00 


<* 






"" 


1 


IO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


00 


Q 


00 


IO 


^ 


*» 


CO 


u 


4 

00 


CM 


CO 


*■ 


CO 


z 












3 












0. 












1 


«T 


IO 


IO 


CO 


00 


z 


00 


h» 


1— 


CO 


CM 


CO 


*~ 


00 


IO 


io 




00 


IO 






f~ 



CO 



o 



CO 


CM 


00 


o 


CO 


CO 


IO 


^ 


CO 


IO 


1 
CM 


v- 


CO 


IO 


1^ 


CO 


^ - 


ft. 

% 

CO 


CO 
CO 
0> 








c 


Q. 


O) 




•o 


< 




c 




a> 




■o 


o 




c 


o 


o 


c 




1 


2 

0) 


■E 

CD 


c 

CO 




< 


z 


o 


CO 



MISDEMEANOR UNIT 

The Misdemeanor Unit consists of 17 attorneys - 15 trial 
attorneys and two supervisors, Robin Levine and Ron Albers. The 
representation of misdemeanor cases-those that carry a penalty 
of a year or less in the County Jail-is conducted in six trial 
departments and one law and motion department of the Municipal 
Court. 

The misdemeanor courts deal with an enormous variety .of 
offenses-from public drunkenness to burglaries and aggravated 
assaults that could have been filed as felonies. By far, the largest 
single category of misdemeanor case is driving under the 
influence-a total of 2,166 cases in Fiscal Year 89-90 and 
approximated 30% of the caseload. 

Misdemeanor cases are disposed of by pleas of guilty, 
convictions and acquittals after trial, by dismissals, and by 
diversion. Diversion involves a referral of the case to the 
probation department or a diversion program, without a plea, on 
the condition that the defendant comply with certain requirements 
over a period of time. If the requirements are met, such as going 
to counseling or doing community service, and there are no 
subsequent charges, the charges are dismissed. 

In Fiscal Year 1989-90, the Misdemeanor Unit handled 90 jury 
trials. Of those 90, there were 27 acquittals and 16 hung juries. 



14 



Disposition of Misdemeanor Caseload 

In Fiscal Year 89-90, the number of new misdemeanor cases 

and motions to revoke was as follows: 

New Misdemeanor Cases 6,169 

Motions to Revoke 484 

6,653 

In addition, there were 759 cases left unadjudicated in the 
last fiscal year which closed in this fiscal year. 

In Fiscal Year 89-90, the disposition of misdemeanor cases 

was: 

Pled Guilty 4,610 

Acquittals and Dismissals 895 

(per 1385, 1382, 1381 PC) 

Diversion Dismissals 609 

Diversion Referrals 974 

Fiscal Year Comparisons 

Table F sets out the fiscal year comparisons between years 

84-85 and the present for new cases. 

TABLE F 

Fiscal Year Comparisons - Public Defender New Misdemeanor Cases 

84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 

9,158 9,164 8,786 7,866 6,169 7,628 

All New Misdemeanor 
84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 
15,399 15,200 13,417 10,756 9,700 10,683 



Source: Judicial Reports, Municipal Court - A, B, & C 
misdemeanors 

15 



JUVENILE UNIT 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients in the 
Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance Center. The Juvenile Court 
Unit has a staff of five attorneys, including a supervisor, Joseph 
Spaeth. It has a support staff of one social worker, one 
investigator, and three clerical personnel. 

Representation of juveniles involves defending them against 
charges which, if they were adults, would be crimes. In some 
cases the Public Defender will represent children who are charged 
with non-criminal behavior, such as truancy or being beyond 
parental control. These are called "status" offenders, and cases 
are brought against juveniles under Section 601 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code. 

Dependency Cases 

Until September, 1988, the Public Defender represented 
parents in the Juvenile Court, where the Department of Social 
Services attempted to suspend or to terminate the parents' 
custody over their children. However, with the loss of three 
positions from our Fiscal Year 88-89 budget, we were unable to 
represent competently the same number of clients. Since we 
were not required by law to represent clients in parental custody 
cases, we discontinued representing clients in that area of the 
law. 



16 



However, this year Mayor Agnos and the Board of 
Supervisors put money in the Public Defender's budget for five 
attorneys and a social worker to handle dependency cases. On 
September 4, 1990 the Public Defender began taking dependency 
cases. 

Juvenile cases are adversary proceedings, and the Public 
Defender must use all of his talents in presenting the factual and 
legal defenses on behalf of the juvenile client. At the same time, 
the Public Defender must also be sensitive to the special 
problems confronting a juvenile offender. Attorneys in the juvenile 
courts must be able to identify emotional and educational 
difficulties and to explore the alternatives which exist outside of 
the legal system. The lawyers must utilize fully all of the 
community-based agencies which provide social or psychiatric 
assistance. 



17 



T-ioiocooor»cooo>o>co 

i^or^cvjtowoocooT-to 
^ 00 ^ CO CM CM in N»n^. f- . 
CM i^ CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CM CM 



i 



>> 
o 
c 
o 



a. 
Q 



If) U> N CM O CO CM CO U> CO to 
CMCMCOOCMCOCMCOCMO 
CMCO^-CM CO to CO 0000 



£ 

5 
8 



If 

2Z 



fc ?il isss. 



0>U)CMC0OU)CM^CM*4'^ 



E 

s i 

CD 75 
< 9! 

H s 

0) 

1 






CO 

m 

3 



0)Oe0ON^5N9rl0O 

1-1-i-NfflO'tcjiooT-n 
i- ^t-^^ cm *- o> wqio^T-^ 

CM t^ CM CM CM CM ^ t^ CM CM CM CM 



9 

■o 

c 

£ 
a 
a 

•- t- (0(DO> COCM 
A COCOt-CM^-t- 



O CO |s. CO 00 
CO CM O) CM CO 



I 



a. 
I 



5 

< 



I ! I I I I fe Mill 



in (ON* oo coo 

00 00 00 00 00 CO 

4 io «i ri. co co 

00 00 00 00 00 00 



a 




s* 






u 


u 


•_ 


c 


3 


a> 

■o 
c 


T-ia> 

S'cr 


a. 


a> 


c 




a 


Q 




o 






15 





r^T-inocooco, , co 

— <*cocoeoco I I I I i- 



CM<3" 



03 

o 

a> i. 

<0 (0 

as a> 

O >- 



o>OT-CMco*rin<0r*cocoo 
|s>ooooooo0ooooooooooooco 

oocoO'AcMco^'iooor^coco 

h-S-00000000000000000000 



3 

o 

> 

m CO i- CO ©If) CO 

£ co oooo co coco 

I I I I I I I 

•= CO Ot- CM CO »* 
<B |s. op op op op 00 

U OOCOOT--CM CO 
q fo I s * 00 00 00 00 

CO 

c 

CD 

E 

E 

E 
o 
u 



CO 

c 
a> 

a> 
Q 



a 
I 

c 

03 

o 

o> 

Q 



(0 

a> 

E 

as 

E 

E 
o 
o 



co 
a> 
co 

s 



CO Is. 00 coo 
00 00 00 00 CO 

uScOis. 00 CO 

00 00 00 00 00 



CO If) CM CO CO 00 
COCO O O*^ CM 



©t-CM CO»*lO C 

00 00 00 00 00 00 03 

COO t- CM WT 

fs. 00 00 00 00 00 Q 



a. 

CO 

s 



CM 



CO 



CYA Commitments 

The San Francisco Probation Department has reported that 
the number of commitments by the Juvenile Court to the 
California Youth Authority has fallen to a ten-year low. Although 
law and order advocates may view this with alarm, many other 
people understand this trend as a preferred use of community- 
based alternatives by the court. The court, instead of being prone 
to send useful offenders to a maximum incarceration facility, seeks 
to find placements in the city that will attempt to grapple with the 
young person's individual problems. 

C.Y.A. is often cited as a model facility, with top correctional 
personnel, including social workers and psychologists. Despite its 
best efforts, it has a recidivism rate of 65%. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office has a social 
worker funded through the A.B. 90 program - a state subsidy to 
the counties for youth rehabilitation programs. In the person of 
Marynella Woods, this social worker has done an exceptionable 
job of identifying placements in lieu of incarceration. She has 
been instrumental in reducing incarceration of our clients in both 
the Log Cabin facility at La Honda, California and C.Y.A. 

MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney in the 
community for the mentally ill. Most of the work of the Mental 
Health Unit, supervised by Estella Dooley, is done in the defense 



19 



of petitions to establish mental health conservatorships pursuant 
to Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This 
conservatorship petition is the legal procedure for establishing 
judicial control over a person who is alleged to be a danger to 
himself or others or who is gravely disabled to the extent of 
lacking the ability to provide food, shelter, and care for 
himself/herself. If the petition is granted, an individual may be 
placed in a state hospital or in a local facility, whichever the court 
deems appropriate. 

In these cases, the Public Defender is appointed to represent 
the proposed conservatee. As the attorney for the proposed 
conservatee, the Public Defender must review the medical reports, 
witnesses' statements, and explore alternative placement if the 
client contests the allegations of the petition. 

The Mental Health Unit also represents mentally-ill clients who 
have been sent to state hospitals. These involve conservatees 
committed under Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions 
Code who have a right to periodic review of their status and their 
treatment, clients who have been found incompetent to stand trial 
under Sections 1368-70 of the Penal Code, those who have been 
found not guilty by reason of insanity under Section 1027 of the 
Penal Code, mentally disordered sex offenders pursuant to Section 
6300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and mentally retarded 



20 



dangerous persons under Section 6500 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code. 

These clients must be regularly visited and interviewed. If 
the state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation for a 
patient, the Public Defender must bring that fact to the attention 
of the court. If it is necessary, a jury trial may be held to 
determine whether or not a person should be kept in a state 
hospital or whether or not his/her parole should be revoked. . 

TABLE H 

Mental Health - 7/1/89 - 6/30/90 

14 Day Certification 1,190 

Medication review hearings (Riese) 108 

Found incompetent 58 

Found competent 15 

Petition withdrawn 16 

No probable cause 9 

Compromised 6 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 239 

Granted 26 

Denied 92 

Withdrawn 121 

New Conservatorships 816 

Granted 263 

Denied 552 

Total Appearances 995 



21 



Conservatorship Renewals 



619 



Granted 

Denied 

Total Appearances 


476 
127 
779 




Terminations 




113 


Rehearings 




53 


Released 

Held 

Withdrawn 


15 
26 
12 




Medical Consents 




48 


Granted 

Denied 

Appearances 


36 
12 
84 




Electroshock Hearings 




3 


Granted 
Denied 


2 

1 




Progress and Placement Reports 




284 


Change Conservator Hearings 




13 


Placement Hearings 




28 


Placement change ordered 
Placement remained 


23 
5 




Probate Code 3200 Cases 




21 


Total Civil Cases 




3,535 


Penal Code 1026.2(E) 




13 


Granted 
Denied 
Withdrawn 
Pending 


1 
2 
7 
3 




Penal Code 1600 Hearings 




39 


Total Criminal Hearings 




71 



22 



RESEARCH UNIT 

The Research Unit is located on the second floor and 
contains a computer room, a library, and two offices. Head 
Attorney Grace L. Suarez supervises a staff consisting of one 
attorney and one paralegal. The physical plant contains six 
computers, four printers, and one scanner. The computers are 
used both by Unit personnel and by the Office's attorneys and 
their interns. They contain electronic copies of the Office's entire 
forms library, as well as recent case summaries. The Library 
contains several hundred case and practice books, as well as a 
microfiche reader-printer, and a copy machine. The Briefs and 
Documents Bank is located here, which contains hundreds of 
sample motions, writs, and appeals. The index is maintained on 
computer. One computer has access through modem to the 
Westlaw computerized research databank and the California Public 
Defenders Association C.L.A.R.A. system. New to the library this 
year is a set of the second edition of the Federal Reports in 
microfiche. This addition was made necessary by the passage of 
Proposition 115, which eliminated the precedential value of many 
California court opinions. 

Much of the Unit's efforts and resources this year was spent 
preparing the Office to grapple with the most fundamental and 



23 



wide-ranging changes to California criminal law ever implemented 
at once: the expected passage of Proposition 115. s 

The Unit prepared a lengthy Practice Guide, currently in its 
second edition. In addition, it held a training session on the 
initiative for all members of the Office, and prepared two new sets 
of motions totalling over 100 pages for the use of the trial 
attorneys. 

Accumulation of material on the initiative from other sources 
began, and the Office's library now contains copies of virtually 
every syllabus, article, and analysis on the subject. 

Unit attorneys organized and conducted other training 
sessions, which received ten hours of specialization credits from 
the State Bar: homicide and felony sentencing on June 22; 
juvenile law and search and seizure on July 13; speedy trial and 
prior convictions on August 24; child molest and forfeitures on 
September 14; and defenses and homicide (part II) on October 5. 

The constitutionality of Proposition 96, one of the AIDS 
testing laws, was challenged in extensive evidentiary hearings and 
in writ proceedings in the Court of Appeal, resulting in a 
published opinion (Johnetta JL v. Municipal Court (1990) 281 
Cal.App.3d 1255). 

Unit personnel continued to support the Office's computer 
users, arranging for training and answering numerous questions. 



5 This effort was justified when the initiative passed on June 5, 1990. 

24 



The two attorneys and one paralegal prepared 124 appeals, writs, 
motions, and other documents for the trial attorneys, and advised 
the lawyers on hundreds of issues. The changed nature of the 
practice is reflected in less requests for routine motions, such as 
motions to suppress evidence. The difficulty of the issues has 
increased, however, and the need to research federal cases and 
decisions of other states add to the time spent on each request. 

The Unit continued to publish its monthly newsletter, as well 
as many memos on issues of current interest. 

The work of the Unit helps assure the quality of the trial 
attorneys' representation. Trial practitioners can submit well- 
researched and drafted motions, and seek pretrial writ relief within 
hours of the motion's denial. The work of the Unit is particularly 
important during times of revolutionary changes in the law. The 
last half-dozen years have seen the passage of Proposition 8 and 
Proposition 115, both of which fundamentally changed the practice 
of criminal law in California. With the help of the Unit, attorneys 
have been able to keep up with these massive changes. 

INVESTIGATIVE UNIT 

The Investigative Unit consists of 11 investigators and 3 
clerks and is supervised by Principal Attorney, Robert Evans. The 
Unit carries out investigation for our Felony, Misdemeanor, 
Juvenile, and Mental Health Units. In Fiscal Year 1988-89 the Unit 



25 



conducted the following 


work 


for the Misdemeanor and Felony 


Units. 








Requests 




Interviews 


Subpoenas 


Misdemeanor 494 




1,175 


516 


Felony 709 

1,203 




1,442 
2,617 


842 
1,358 



An investigator starts working on a case when an attorney 
makes a written request. The request may ask that a witness be 
located and interviewed, that the crime scene be photographed, 
and/or that a document be located. A suspense date is set for 
the completion of the investigation. Supplementary requests may 
be made. The same investigator will be assigned to the case 
throughout the life of the case. 

Solid and competent investigation is absolutely essential to 
effective representation. It can literally win the case for the 
lawyer. It can provide the exculpatory evidence which proves a 
client's innocence. It can find those facts which contradict the 
prosecutor's case. 

OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST 
Conflicts 

The Public Defender is required to represent all persons 
accused of crimes who do not have enough money for their 
counsel. However, cases arise where the Public Defender cannot 
represent an accused who does not have funds for his own 



26 



counsel. For example, there may be more than one person 
charged in a case, and the Public Defender can only represent 
one person. In that case, the Public Defender declares a conflict- 
of-interest, and a separate, private attorney will be appointed. 
Conflicts can arise also where a public defender client becomes 
a witness against another public defender client. In that case, one 
or the other will have to have separate non-public defender 
counsel. 

We have sought to limit declarations of conflict-of- 
interest to those situations required by law and ethics. In multiple 
defendant cases, we usually represent the "heaviest" defendant- 
the one whose case requires the most work. 

Conflict costs are expensive. What is more, a Public 
Defender who shies away from serious cases by finding a 
farfetched reason for a conflict does a disservice to his statutory 
responsibilities. The following table states the number of conflict 
cases, as well as the costs, over the last several years. 



27 







TABLE I 








Conflict Cases 




Conflict Costs 






Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 


Total 


82-83 
83-84 
84-85 
85-86 
86-87 
87-88 
88-89 
89-90 


605,822 

600,719 

508,893 

1,064,647 

921,935 

1,029,190 

1,143,933 

1,094,049 


794,992 
840,201 
968,707 
1,080,848 
1,383,426 
1,545,164 
2,310,460 
2,699,729 


1,400,814 
1,440,920 
1,477,602 
2,145,495 
2,305,361 
2,574,354 
3,454,393 
3,793,778 



Number of Conflict Cases 



Year 


Municipal Court 


Superior Court 


Total 


82-83 


2,096 


1,111 


3,207 


83-84 


1,532 


1,025 


2,557 


84-85 


1,432 


787 


2,219 


85-86 


2,417 


1,460 


3,877 


86-87 


2,007 


1,841 


3,848 


87-88 


2,465 


2,373 


4,836 


88-89 


3,220 


3,858 


7,078 


89-90 


1,920 


4,289 


6,209 



The figures in Table I are based on data provided by the 
Municipal and Superior Courts. The following is a breakdown of 
the various cases handled by the Superior Court (which are 
reflected in the totals above). 



28 



Costs and Types of Superior Court Conflict Cases 



Criminal 


$1,298,910 


1,684 


Mental Health 


$58,522 


n/a 


Juvenile 


$1,334,495 


2,605 


Dependency 


$934,285 


2,046 


Delinquency 


$400,210 


559 



Volunteer Attorneys 

For over ten years, the Public Defender's Office has benefited 
from the volunteer participation of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro and 
Morrison & Foerster. Recently, our volunteer staff has been joined 
by members of the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. 
For stints up to six months, an attorney from one of the nation's 
most prestigious firms works in our office handling misdemeanor 
and felony cases. The quality of their work has been outstanding, 
reflecting the excellence and public spirit of their firm and 
themselves individually. We all owe a great vote of thanks to 
these fine lawyers. 

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of each of the 
attorneys and their firms in the last year: 



29 



Pillsburv. Madison & Sutro 

Lisa Saveri 

Paula Weber 

Charles Novack 

Nancy Cox 

Chris Byers 

Dale Lysak 
Heller. Ehrman. White & McAuliffe 

Sergio Garcia 
Skadden. Arps. Slate, Meagher & Flom 

Albert Boro, Jr. 

Death Penalty Funding 

On September 30, 1990 Governor Deukmejian vetoed A.B. 
2813 which would have appropriated $13 million for reimbursement 
to the counties for the cost of death penalty defense of indigent 
defendants. The Governor's action ended a 12-year subsidy to 
the counties in California which permitted them to pay for experts 
and witnesses in the defense of capital cases. 

This subsidy did much to insure that wherever a defendant 
was tried in California, in a rich county or a poor county, the 
accused would have sufficient means of presenting his or her 
case. 

Death penalty cases are exceeding complex. They involve 
two distinct phases - the guilty phase, where the jury must decide 



30 



(1) the defendant's guilt, as well as whether certain facts, as 
predicated by eligibility for death penalty prosecution, did occur; 
and (2) the penalty phase where the jury must decide, after having 
found the defendant guilty of the death penalty offense, whether 
the death penalty should be imposed. The trial requires the most 
thorough factual investigation possible, and it requires a 
knowledge of the latest developments in criminology, chemical 
testing, psychiatry, and even statistics. The attorney must be 
completely knowledgeable on the law in a field which has grown 
into a specialty. And the attorney must be prepared, after 
exhaustive efforts, to present any facts that might mitigate against 
the imposition of the ultimate penalty. 

The Governor's veto does not relieve the community or the 
attorney of any duty to provide this kind of very expensive 
representation. But it does hamper the ability of counties to 
provide it. Without the money, county governments will resist 
defense attempts to secure funds for a competent defense. The 
resistance will ultimately cause a reluctance by judges to make 
such orders. 

In sum, the Governor's veto seriously threatens the future of 
competent death penalty representation. The San Francisco Public 
Defender has four death penalty cases, including the case of 
Richard Ramirez, who is accused of being the "night stalker." We 
will make every effort to represent those four defendants with the 



31 



same vigor and diligence we have in the past. Let us hope that 
judges will continue to order the funds from the county treasurer 
to do the job. Let us hope that a new governor will sign 
legislation that will reinstate the subsidy so that all counties can 
meet their responsibilities under the law. 

Proposition 115 

Proposition 115 was passed by California's voters on June 5, 
1990. The measure is a comprehensive, wholesale revision of 
California's Criminal Law and Procedure. 

Proposition 115 abolished virtually every independent 
protection for criminal defendants which had been provided under 
California's constitution. As a result, California's courts can give 
no greater protection than that provided in the federal courts. 

In addition, the measure provided: 

1. In preliminary hearings, hearsay may be used and the 
defense's ability to call witnesses is curtailed. 

2. The judge, and not the lawyers, shall question prospective 
jurors for trial. 

3. Limits defense access to discovery of prosecution 
information and requires the defense to give discovery of its 
information to the prosecution. 

4. Expanded the list of offenses carrying the death penalty. 



32 



5. Restricted the ability of the defense to obtain 
continuances in order to prepare cases and penalizes lawyers for 
inability to comply with the new time requirements. 

6. Restores the use of the Grand Jury in felony cases thus 
doing away with preliminary hearings where the prosecution 
chooses. 

Impact 

In the months since its enactment, Prop. 115 has had a 
limited effect. Judges have taken over the role of questioning 
potential jurors. There has been one hearsay preliminary hearing 
which was found to be defective by the Superior Court. The 
District Attorney apparently does not feel that there will be many 
hearsay preliminary hearings until report writing by members of 
the police department shows major improvement. 

But over time, this measure will have a radical effect upon 
the entire criminal justice system of California. The result upon 
the San Francisco Public Defender's Office will be to significantly 
alter the manner in which Public Defenders carry out the individual 
representation of their clients. 

Affirmative Action 

Affirmative Action continues to represent a major goal for 
1990-91. The Office of the Public Defender represents in great 
number individuals from minority backgrounds. The presence of 
attorneys from ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds of the 



33 



client community assists the lawyer-client relationship by 
developing more of a relationship of trust. It is also an important 
statement of this office's commitment to equal opportunity. At 
the present time, 41.8% of the lawyers are of minority ethnic 
groups, and 46.3% are women. In addition, this office has a 
substantial presence of Gay and Lesbian attorneys. Although the 
minority composition of our office is already in compliance with 
workforce standards, and is, in fact, at parity with the adult 
population of the City, in 1990-91, it is our intention to increase 
minority presence in this office, and we are confident that we can 
do it. 

As of October 10, 1990, of the 71 attorneys on staff, the 
ethnic minority breakdown consists of: Asian (8), Black (8), 
Filipino (4), Hispanic (8), and one Palestinian. 

Training 

Training is an essential part of the life of any respectable 
public defender's office. It is the means by which basic 
information about the work and the law is conveyed to new 
attorneys and other staff. It is also imperative for the continuing 
education of the staff. Developments of law and forensics occur 
so rapidly and continuously that it is virtually impossible for the 
individual practitioner to keep apace by himself or herself. 



34 



Training, for that reason, has become an integral part of the 
operation of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and has 
been since the early 1980s. It takes on three different modalities: 

(1) On-the-iob . This consists of breaking the attorney or 
other staff person into the work he or she will be doing. It is 
important that the individual not just be "shown the ropes," but 
also be given feedback with both formal and informal evaluations. 
Additionally, there are training and resource materials. 

(2) In-house . The Office provides educational sessions on 
developments of law, forensics, or other issues relating to our 
work. This is usually structured with instruction and questions. 
We have also been able to provide simulated courtroom 
presentations. 

(3) Out-of-office . The individuals attend seminars put on by 
professional associations. The California Public Defenders 
Association provides scholarships to seminars they present. 

Ideally, training will equip the staff person with sufficient 
preparation for the demands of the job. More likely, it will break 
the isolation the individual has in doing the job, showing different 
approaches and allowing the staff member to share his or her 
experiences. Training mightily contributes to the elan of the 
organization. 



35 



In 1989-90, the Public Defender's Office provided and 
participated in a score of formal training sessions. Table J details 
them. 





TABLE J 






TRAINING 




Office-Wide Seminars 




7/13/89 


Search and Seizure 
Juvenile Law 


Scott Spear 
Patti Lee 


8/24/89 


Speedy Trial 
Prior Convictions 


Ron Albers 
Brendan Conroy 


9/14/89 


Drugs 
Forfeitures 


Jeff Brown 


10/5/89 


Defenses 
Homicide Part II 


Stephen Rosen 
Michael N. Burt 


12/1/89 


Document Examiners and 
Handwriting Experts 


Marcel Matley 


1/4/90 


The Use of Expert Witnesses 


Stephen M. Pitte 



2/15/90 

6/13/90 
6/20/90 



in Drug and Alcohol Related 
Defenses 

1990 Criminal Statutes 



Federal Discovery Practice 
Proposition 115 



Grace L. Suarez 
Robin Levine 
Robert Berman 
Daro Inouye 

Bill Goodman 

Grace L. Suarez 



36 



Misdemeanor Division Seminars 

10/12/89 Writ & Appellate Procedures 

10/26/89 Defenses 

11/8/89 Evidence 

2/1/90 Jail Psychiatric Services 



6/6/90 



Proposition 115 



Grace L. Suarez 

Stephen Rosen 

Ron Albers 

Karen Cotton 
Derek Lott 

Ron Albers 
Robin Levine 



Private Seminars to which we obtained scholarships 



7/12-7/15/89 

8/19/89 

9/2/89 



12/9/89 

12/9/89 
3/10/90 
6/16/90 
6/30/90 



California Public Defenders 
Association (CPDA) Trial Skills 
Institute, San Diego 

CPDA Child Molestation Seminar, 
Napa 

CPDA Sentencing Seminar, 
San Francisco 



Program 
Coordinators: 
Jeff Brown & 
Grace L. Suarez 



California Attorneys for Criminal 
Justice (CACJ) Creative Criminal 
Defense, San Francisco 

CPDA Driving Under the Influence 
Seminar, San Francisco 

CPDA Advanced Felony Practice 
Seminar, San Francisco 

CPDA Driving Under the Influence 
Seminar, San Francisco 

CPDA Basic Misdemeanor Practice 
Seminar, Los Angeles 



37 



Specialization Credit 

With regard to the seminars listed as "office-wide" seminars, 
State Bar Criminal Specialization credit of two units per session 
was requested for the seminars held on 7/13, 8/24, 9/14, and 
10/5/89. 

Specialization credit of three units was requested for the 
seminar held on 2/15/90. 

All of the above requests were granted. 

Word Perfect (Computer) Training 

Grace Suarez of this Office conducted in-house Word Perfect 
training sessions for the employees of this office that commenced 
9/7/89. 

This Office also enrolled employees in both basic and 
advanced Word Perfect training provided by the City and County's 
Information Services Division. 

cps939l 10.90 



38 






OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1989-90 FISCAL YEAR 



SUPPLEMENT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT 



Jeff Brown 
Public Defender 

Peter G. Keane 
Chief Attorney 



DOC I DEPT. 

SAN ~ C ° 



TABLES 

Page 

Table I - All Felony Cases (New) - Muni and Superior Court 2 

Table II - Average Number of Public Defender Trial 2 

Cases Pending in Superior Court 

Table III - Arrests for Opiates - Heroin-Cocaine 5 

Table IV - State Prison Commitments 6 

Table V - Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filing (All Cases) 8 

Table VI - Persons Accused of Non-Traffic Misdemeanors 9 

in Municipal Court 



SUPPLEMENT OF DETAILED INFORMATION 

TO ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 

OFFICE OF THE PUBUC DEFENDER 

1989-90 



Preface 

This Supplement to the Annual Report is a collection of 
statistical information about the Public Defender workload and the 
workload of the court system. Some of the information from other 
agencies will provide the reader with a comparison of statistical 
information provided by the Public Defender - a sort of "reality 
check." Other material is simply far too detailed to be included 
in the commentary of the Annual Report. 



cps955/10.90 



CO 







o 


CM 


f* 


IO 


CO 






OJ 


*■ 


o 


r^ 


o 






d> 


© 


°l 


00 


00 






00 


h» 


^ 


CM 


cm" 






en 


o 


CM 


00 


o> 






00 


r*. 


^ 


o 


*■ 






00 


CD 


CO 


io 


** 




■e 


00 


IC 


T* 


eo 


CO 




3 














8 














O 

■c 

s. 


00 


CO 


CM 


T" 


*■ 




00 


o 


r* 


O) 


CO 




1 


00 


1^ 


^ , 


IO 




00 


CO 


T» 


cm" 


cm" 




3 














(0 










o> 




V 










CM 




c 










0) 




CB 


r». 


CO 


< 


o> 


fj 






00 


CO 




CM 




mm . 


e 


<i 


T- 


z 


°1 






3 


00 


f-~ 




T" 




a 


S 












CQ 


■ 












< 


,— ^ 












H 


0) 


(O 


CM 


CM 


CM 


s 




00 


^ 


00 


o 




1 

to 


*■ 


io 


CO 


"I 




M 


00 


|C 


^ 


*■ 


T- 




8! 














3 














>• 
C 
O 


to 


o 


1— 


o 


o 




00 


IO 


CO 


IO 


§ 




4 


LO 


N-_ 


CM 




a> 


00 


CO- 


*~ 


*™ 


^ 




LL 














^ ^ 




























< 
















«tf 


CM 


o 


CB 


,_ 






00 


CO 


CM 


CM 


^ 






co 


o> 


°1 




^ 






00 


io 


1™ 


*" 


T- 



** * 
»3 

E o 
cO 

1J 

<2 



* « 

* * 

, r we co 

3 CO 3 CO 

CO o « O <u* 

go o-O a* 

'■si: "D is "a o 

jo o go go 

fc *- «s *e a= 

rji S a) S — 

o o. to. r c 

*: 3 0> 3 0> 3 

JEc/> OCT) OS 



0) 

o 

1 

CO 

«-> 
CO 



u 

c 

3 
O 

O 

To 
"5 



o 
O 

i 

o 

c 



0> 

o 



o 

CO 

* 



t: 

3 
O 

o 



0) 

Q. 
3 
CO 



0) 

O 

o 

3 
O 
CO 

* 
* 







S «o 






8 2- 






T" 


o 

CO 
CO 






a 


1 m . 




c 


00 

en 


CM 




3 


^ 


1 CM 




<s 








u 








O 








•c 








& 








3 
(0 


00 


CO 

o 




e 


00 

en 


CO 






T- 


^ 




O) 




1 CM 




c 
















s 








c 






MM 


9 






1SB1 


a. 






a 


CO 






m 


$ 


f* 


1 "> 


? 


5 


CO 
0) 


CM 




75 








■c 








h- 








•. 








a> 








"D 








C 








S 


CO 






o 


00 


o 




a 


0) 


CM 




u 
























5 








3 








a. 








<•- 








o 








2 


IO| 
CO 


CM 

*■ 




E 

3 

z 


CO 


IO 




y— \ 


CO 




a 








O) 








& 








$ 








> 








< 


CO 


CM 






CO 


IO 






*— 


CO 



CM 



CM 



E 
a> 

ts 

>. 

CO 

1= 

a> 

E 
o> 

O) 
CO 

c 

CO 



n 

3 
O 

o 



a> 
& 

3 
O 
CO 



Comment : (Table I) 

Table I sets forth the intake of new felony cases by the 
Municipal and Superior Courts for the years between Fiscal Years 
83-89 and 89-90. 

The arraignments in the Municipal Court is the number of 
felony complaints filed by the District Attorney. 

The Superior Court intake consists almost entirely of (1) 
informations - cases filed by the District Attorney after a 
preliminary hearing, (2) certified pleas of guilty - cases where a 
plea has been entered in the Municipal Court, where the Superior 
Court will render a sentence. 

Table I does not include felony motions to revoke probation. 
Only recently has the Superior Court started to count those as a 
separate statistical category. 

The data set forth in Table I parallel Public Defender data 
during those years. The caseload for new felonies grew steadily 
between Fiscal Years 83-84 and 86-87; then took a sharp rise 
during Fiscal Year 87-88 at the height of undercover activity by 
the San Francisco Police Department against those using and 
selling drugs. In Fiscal Years 88-89 and 89-90, the police efforts 
leveled off somewhat. In Fiscal Years 88-89 and 89-90, the District 
Attorney filed an increasing number of felony motions to revoke 
probation against individuals arrested for new drug charges who 
were on probation. Usually, the District Attorney dispensed with 



a new prosecution if a motion to revoke probation could be used. 
This also accounts for the decline of new prosecutions in Fiscal 
Years 88-89 and 89-90. 
Comment : (Table II) 

Table II represents the number of Public Defender cases 
awaiting trial in the Superior Court. It is set out on an annual 
year basis. 

In 1990 the trial cases dropped substantially after two very 
heavy years. This also reflects the District Attorney's policy of 
foregoing a new prosecution against probationers and instead 
pursuing motions to revoke. 



TABLE III 

Arrests for Opiates — Heroin-Cocaine* 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 



January 




506 


765 


886 


600 


February 


— 


368 


682 


871 


546 


March 


— 


228 


980 


930 


699 


April 


— 


417 


815 


776 


390 


May 


... 


472 


789 


606 


301 


June 


— 


446 


788 


606 


275 


July 


... 


457 


741 


626 


307 


August 


389 


508 


807 


811 


386 


September 


354 


590 


848 


700 


369 


October 


377 


719 


832 


484 




November 


356 


692 


881 


469 




December 


344 


682 


797 


553 





(Source: San Francisco Police Department) 
Comment : 

Table III is the number of arrests for "opiates" (heroin, 

cocaine, crack) by the San Francisco Police Department between 

August, 1986 and September, 1990. The police arrest policy from 

1987 to April, 1990 had enormous impact on the workload of all 

justice system agencies. 



* Please note that while cocaine is not an opiate, it is prosecuted under the 
same code sections of the California Health and Safety Code as is heroin; 
therefore, they are frequently counted together as in the table above. 



TABLE IV 
State Prison Commitments 

A. Persons Committed to State Prison 

Year San Francisco 



1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 



525 
593 
841 
724 
634 
646 
880 
846 
933 
1,123 
1,410 



California 

9,874 
11,347 
13,932 
15,932 
18,398 
17,602 
20,543 
23,466 
26,535 
29,551 
34,226 



(Source: California Department of Corrections) 



B. Cases Where There Is a State Prison Commitment 

Year San Francisco Percent of Total California 



1979 


517 


1980 


467 


1981 


795 


1982 


759 


1983 


756 


1984 


841 


1985 


938 


1986 


858 


1987 


883 


1988 


921 


1989 


1,180 



Sentences 

29.3 
23.3 
31.7 
33.7 
31.5 
33.2 
34.7 
31.4 
29.9 
22.2 
26.2 



8,878 
10,311 
13,971 
25,122 
16,677 
18,094 
21,421 
24,210 
25,029 
25,887 
29,089 



Percent of Total 
Sentences 

25.3 
26.5 
30.4 
32.5 
34.7 
34.6 
33.7 
34.6 
34.5 
33.2 
33.5 



(Source: Adult Felony Dispositions - Department of Justice) 



Comment : 

Table IV is in two parts. Part A is a chart showing the 
number of persons received at the Department of Corrections from 
San Francisco and into the state prisons from throughout 
California between 1979 and 1989. 

Part B shows the number of state prison cases in San 
Francisco and California between 1979 and 1989. 

There are statistical differences between Parts A and B that 
reflect a different selection criterion, as well as the typical 
counting differences doing much the same thing. However, both 
evidence similar trends. 

Most noticeable is the sharp increase in state prison cases 
in 1989. That, we think, has much to do with the increased use 
of felony motions to revoke discussed in the Annual Report. 



TABLE V 



Juvenile Court Caseloads and Filing (All Cases) 



Department of Justice: 
Caseload 1972-1988 



Active Juvenile Probation 



1972 
1973 
1974 
1975 
1976 
1977 



1,997 
1,956 
2,004 
1,940 
1,837 
1,144 



1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 



1,119 
1,333 
1,313 
1,259 
1,385 
1,348 



1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 



1,208 
1,291 
1,287 
1,255 
1,200 



Judicial Council Reports: Juvenile Court Filing 



Year Total Original Subsequent Contested 
Filings Filings Filings Matters 



601 W&l 



76-77 


2,355 


1,597 


77-78 


2,017 


1,484 


78-79 


2,130 


1,467 


79-80 


2,116 


1,426 


80-81 


1,933 


1,178 


81-82 


2,295 


1,388 


82-83 


2,356 


1,128 


83-84 


2,158 


1,278 


84-85 


1,982 


1,533 


85-86 


1,981 


1,618 


86-87 


1,730 


998 


87-88 


2,032 


988 


88-89 


2,032 


1,026 


89-90 


2,206 


1,007 



758 

533 

653 

690 

755 

907 

1,030 

1,078 

449 

363 

732 

1,144 

1,306 

1,198 



480 
437 
516 
621 
556 
530 
305 
270 
235 
221 
262 
209 
113 
211 



209 

172 

93 

132 

119 

87 

49 

71 

19 

16 

34 

148 

68 

7 



8 



TABLE VI 
Persons Accused of Non-Traffic Misdemeanors in Municipal Court 



1979-80 


15,131 


1985 




15,495 


1980 


17,510 


1985-86 




15,206 


1980-81 


14,322 


1986 




14,656 


1981-82 


20,091 


1986-87 




13,417 


1982 


18,276 


1987-88 




11,172 


1982-83 


14,418 


1988-89 




12,985 


1983 


11,563 


1989-90 




11,621 


1983-84 


12,281 
13,831 








1984 




1984-85 


15,399 


11 yr 


. av. 


- 14,186 








(FY only) 



(Source: Judicial Council Reports of Municipal Court) 

Comment : 

Table VI is the number of non-traffic misdemeanors in the 
Municipal Court. Table VI is drawn from the Court's own reports. 
The trends shown here and in Public Defender statistics is clear: 
there is a significant decline in recent years of misdemeanor 
cases coming into the courts. 



List of Jury Trials in Municipal and Superior Courts 
by Public Defender Attorneys 



Comment : 

The following pages contain the list of misdemeanor and 
felony cases tried by deputy public defenders. The notation is: 

G for Guilty 

NG for Not Guilty 

Mist for Mistrial 
"Quarter" means the quarter of the fiscal year it was tried. The 
first quarter would be July 1 to September 30, for example. 



10 



FELONY TRIALS 



11 



JRUKN 

'rials 
1 Year 


1 98S-90 












Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 


Charge 


Verdict 


Quarter 




ADACHI 


DUCU, ROBERT 


1160340 


261/288A/289 


G 


1 






WESTON, THEODORE 


134622 


261/288/212.5 


HIST 


3 




Count: 


CLARKE, JEFFREY 
KcCOY, DAVID 
McHENRY, HICHAEL 
TILLIE, KAREN 
WESTON, THEODORE 


1212646 
1006469 
1187768 
1223345 
1189194 


212,5/69 

11351 

12021 

11252 

261/288/212.5 

n 
J 


G 
G 

HIST 
NG 

G 


4 








AHABILE 


BROWN, AARON 
PALHA.LUIS 
FORT, SHIRLEY 
RAY, SANDRA 


117C705 
1083301 
1179168 
1172041 


591/602 
459 
647B 
666 


n 

HIST 

G 

G 


1 






HIXON.RISA 
BOURBON, VICTOR 
THOHAS, ALBERT 


1171747 
1182480 
1195664 


23152 
23152 
243B 


G 
G 
NG 


2 






KENNEDY 
ALLUHS, STEVEN 


1181333 
1211185 


23152 
243/11364/148 


NG 
G 


3 




Count: 


STITTS,HARK 
DEBARDELEBEN, KELLY 


1219385 
1194830 


273.5/245 
647B 

11 


G 
G 


4 










BISHARAT 
Count: 


WATSON, DONALD 
KESE.TOGIA 
ANAYA, RICHARD 


1219131 
1198005 
134462 


459 
212,5/10851 

3 


HIST 

G 

HIST 


3 










CAFFESE 


VIGIL, SELINA 


1122509 


23152/14601. 1A 


G 


1 




Count: 


STEWART, DIRK 


1231628 


11350 
2 


G 


4 










CAPRIOLO 
Count: 


LARVELL, RICHARD 


1228113 


11352 
1 


HIST 


4 










CHAN 


DAVIS, RODNEY 
JOHNESE, ALBERT 
HCCARTY, HICHAEL 


1181656 
1126521 
1187842 


212.5 

11359 
459 


G 
G 
G 


2 






QUINONES, MARTIN 
GASCA, ALBERTO 


1180758 
1192295 


11350/11351 
11277 


G/NG 

G 


3 






LUCNG.TUCNG.UNG 
CCNRADO, PHILLIFE 


1171876 
1216388 


288 AlB 
459 


G 
G 


4 



frials 
Year 1989-91 



Attorney 
CHAN 
Count: 
CHAN,R 
Count: 
CHIEN 



Count: 
COHEN 



Defendant 



HULYfl , i 

FRANK, THOMAS 
DIXON, JOHN 



Case 



Charge 



1172647 
1172409 

1203781 



23152 AiB 
23152 AIB 

417.2/242 



Verdict Quarter 



JACKSON, MARK 


1219840 


212,5 


MIST 


4 


LOIODICI, JOSEPH 


1134575 


g 

417A/136.1 


NG 


1 


DOLLEN, JASON 


1118524 


1 

10852 


MIST 


2 


RAMIREZ, ERNESTO 


1204841 


23152/14601 


HIST 




STERLING, DENITA 


1220741 


647B 


NG 


4 


BUNCUM, KENNETH 


1139214 


273a2/242 


G/NG 




LIVINGSTON, MARK 


1094936 


23152/23103/2800.1 


NG 





G 

G 

MIST 





PACHECO, MARIO 
REEVES, RODNEY 


1209006 
1202938 


23152 A 
14601.1(A) 


NG 
MIST 


4 


Count: 




5 




CONROY 


LABELLE, FRANK 


1158670 


245/20002 


G 







ARIAS, ALEJANDRO 


1137858 


261,2/288/236 


NG 


1 




SKINNER, CORY 


1187757 


192/245/246 


IG/G 


2 




PRIETO, HARRY 


1179052 


187 


MIST 


3 




HILTON, ANDRE 


1135590 


11352 


MIST 


4 


Count: 




5 




COX 


JONES.MICHAEL 
SANCHEZ, RAUL 
KUMAR, AVINDO 


1224578 
1232065 
1226924 


10851/23152/20002 

417 

243.4 


NG/MIST/G 

NG 

G 


4 


Count: 




3 




CRESPO 


MURPHY, JOHN. B 
DYCUS, WENDELL 


1222233 
1217819 


459/212.5 
459/446 


NG 
G 


4 


Count: 




2 




:rosby 


SMITH, SHAWN 


1186960 


11350 


NG 


2 




HARRIS, MICHAEL 


1210264 


11252/182 


G 


4 



ROW PUBLIC DEFENDER 










rials 
Year 1989-90 












Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 


Charge 


Verdict 


Quarter 


CROSBY 


WOOTEN , DANNY 
RODRIGUEZ, JULIO 


1219687 
1215555 


11350 

Hi , u 


G 
G 


4 


Count: 




4 




DAVIS 


BENNETT, CHARLES 


1197905 


212.5/459 


G 


2 




CLEHENTE, RAMON 
AKINS, REGINALD 


1213152 
1202237 


11352 
11351 


G 
G 


3 


Count: 


WOODS, RICHARD 


1176934 


664/187/245/192 


G 


4 




4 




DEJSSUS 


HARRINGTON, THOMAS 
QUINTEROS, WALTER 


1146714 
1158391 


459 
602,5/466 


G 

G 


1 




GONZALEZ, GIL3ERT0 


1174048 


11377 


G 


2 


Count: 


CARTER, WILLIAM 
JOHNSON, ERIC 
RIZZO, SALOMON 


1197091 
1159972 

1211783 


192 

11351/148 

12020/212.5 

S 


NG 

G 

G 


4 






DEWBERRY 


WILLIANS,WASH 
CA5ELLA, PHILIP 


1200369 
1199137 


261/236 
23153A4B 


G 
G 


3 


Count: 


MORRIS, SYLVANNA.V 


1203538 


212.5/11364 
3 


G 


4 






FERNANDEZ 


ARCE, FRANK 
VELASQUEZ, ALEX 


1172686 
1155019 


11550 
245A(1) 


NG 
MIST 


1 




KETTUD,KANSHAI 
ARCE. DANIEL 
DELCAMPO, MICHAEL 

PARKER, ANTHONY 


1135909 
1184187 
1151562 
1175226 


23152 
23152 A&B 
245 
23152(a) 


G 

NG 

MIST 
NG 


2 


Count: 


WASHINGTON, BRUCE 


1165901 


415/148 
7 


NG 


3 






FORSYTHE 


WILSON.SYLVESTER 
SANDLES, ANTHONY 


1147025 
1160590 


212,5 
664,212.5/245 


MIST 
G 


1 




DANIELS, REGINALD 
WILSON.SYLVESTER 


1137722 
1147025 


11351/148 
212,5 


G 
G 


2 




ANGELO.LONNIE 


1200507 


245 


NG 


3 




SMITH, EARL 


1219102 


245/273.5 


G 


4 



rials 
Year 1929-90 



Attorney 



Defendant 



Case 



Charge 



Count: 

LECKLIKNER ^OMEZ, BORIS 

Count: 



123094* 



212,5 



Verdict Quarter 



Count: 




6 






GAUGER 


ARCHANGEL, JUAN 
CALLIER, THEODORE 


1110936 
1151309 


187/192A , 664/245A 

664/187/245GBI 


G 

MIST/G 




MAAS, PATRICIA 


1206172 


484/490.5 


G 




WARD, STEVEN 


1212381 


23152 A 


NG 


Count: 


4 




GOLDROSEN 


ENG.DENISE 


1101843 


137 


G 


Count: 


1 




GONZALEZ 


SMITH, PAUL 


1151099 


11350 


MIST 


Count: 


1 




GRIFFIN 


TYLER, GREGORY 


1191409 


459 


G 




GREEN, LAMAR 


1200921 


11351 


G 


Count: 


2 




HECRHAN 


BUTLER, SHARON 


1176112 


11351 


G 




TUGGLE, STEVEN 


1180350 


664/187/136 


G 




IRVING, SHAW 

GRAVES, PHILIP 


1201238 
1212024 


246 
12021/417/12031 


NG 
G 




ENGLISH, 3ARBARA 


1229836 


6S4/187/245 


G 


Count: 


5 




IVERSOI! 


RISLEY, CLARA 
SIMPSON, LUTHER 


1160155/1152428 
1152657/1149112 


64?B 
12020/653U) 


G 
NG 




SCHLAFF.E, WILLIAM 
LAUBENTHALJON 


1193004 
1161378 


594/148 
666 


G 
G 




KENNEDY, KENNETH 


1214356 


23152 AfcB 


G 


Count: 


5 




KAPLAN 


SANDERS, MACK 
RICE, SAMUEL 


1151361 
1089229 


212,5 
192 


G 
G 



rials 
Year 1989-90 














Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 




Charge 


Verdict 


Quarter 


LLORENTE 


LANG, VAN, NGUYEN 


1095620 




212,5 


G 


3 




LOPEZ .MARVIN 


1212932 




11352/182 


G 


4 


Count: 




2 




LOWINGER 


IVY, JOHN 


1163374 




212,5/459 


NG 


1 




BROWN, LEONARD 


1185940 




273 


G 


3 


Count: 




2 




MAAS 


GOLDSTEIN, ERIC 


1156079 




11350/11351/11352 


G 


1 




HATTEONI.BART 


1177125 




242 


NG 


2 




ROCHA, RAFAEL 


1211217 




245/273/243 


G 


4 


Count: 




3 




NICCO 


ADDI, NELSON 
WOODS, ROBERT 


1140254 
1180781 




207/10851/240 
212,5 


G 
G 


2 




JOYCE, SEAN 


1211749 




12031 


HIST 


4 



Count: 3 

NOVACK ALLUHS, STEVEN 1215755 487.2 



Count: 1 

OHRBACR CALKINS, GARY 1171128 459/245/666 HIST 

DOUGLAS,GARY 1156947 459/10851/496.1 G 

FRYE, JONATHAN 1208920 212,5/245 G 



Count: 3 

PERDUE ORELLANA,LUIS 1167218 23152B G 

SPEECH, ABRAHAM 1169822 242 NC- 

HARIN, FRANK 1132474 417a HIST 

CURTIS, GREGORY 1151245 23152A/14601.1A G 

HELINQUIAS.VIRAY 1185474 23152 HIST 

CONLEY.LISA 1166437 647B G 

BAISLEY, LAWRENCE 1203717 273,5/242 NG 

FEES, KENTON 1183844 23152A G 

MEYERS, MARTY 1207375 273.5/242 NG 

MARTINEZ, VICTOR 1190922 23152 AtB NG 

ARAMBULA, EDDIE 1263916 23152(A) NG 

JUSTIN, LINDA 1201160 21950/192 NG 

CONSTSANT. RICHARD 1222776 273.5/242 3 



cnunn ri.'DLi.!, utrtnutn 

Trials 

1 Year 1 9 S 9 - ^ 












Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 




Charge 


Verdict 


Quarter 


Count: 
















13 




QUINONES 


McCANTS, WILLIAM 


1172137 




242/404 


G 


1 




SIK0RA,J0HN 


1110647 




23152A&B 


G 


2 




GLOSEN, CHARLES 


1193201 




666/148/417 


G 


3 


Count: 


HAYNES, LANCE 
COYLE, JOHN 


1226588 +6 
1190231 


cases 


537A/484/459 
23152 A 


G 
G 


4 




5 




RAPPAPORT 


MOLINA, 

ALVAREZ, 

CMIEN, 


1172999 
1164628 
1170983 




484/243/148 

148/243 

417 


G 
G 
G 


1 




JACKSON, EMITT 
BAILEY 
SANRAMON,A 
GAMBOL, J 


1168246 
1153608 
1175074 
1187726 




11550 
23152 AiB 
594 
12025/12031 


NG 

MIST 
MIST 
G 


2 




HECTOR, HARRY 
VfILTZ,STALETTO 

AKZAM.JOHN 
ABJSARA.TARCA 


1207716 
1202038 
1183877 




245/242 
594 Al 
23152 AtB 
487/490.5 


G 

NG 
G 
G 


3 


Count: 


WILSON, WELCY 
BANZON, ROLANDO 
WARN, PETER 


1225143 
1210900 
1239395 




192 

20002 

417(a)(1) 


G 
G 
NG 


4 




13 




RISCHMAN 


BRANNER, EUGENE 


1166329 




11352/182 


G 


1 




JONES, AARON 


1168577 




10851 


NG 


2 




ACACIO, LEON 


1191072 




11350/51/52 


G 


3 


Count: 


GALLASPIE, CLARENCE 


1167657 




11351,5 


G 


4 




4 




ROSEN 
Count : 


SILVER, JOHN 


1196656 




212,5 


G 


o 

it 




1 




ROSS 


JULIUS, LYLE 
BAGWELL, HARRELL 


1159821 
1175632 




192 
187 


G 
G 


2 




UNG.SOON 


1219365 




187/245 


G 


4 



Count: 



uv/ rii : uuui.' j u ; bii u l ■ r. 



rials 
Year 



1989-90 
Attorney 



Defendant 



,ase 



Charge 



Verdict Quarter 



ROWE 


PLEMMONS, JOHN 

BROCKELHURST, MICHAEL 
JONES, CLARENCE 


1150590 

1175996 
1155378 


417 
417 
10851 


G 
G 
G 


1 




AMARJIT,SEIHI 


1193282 


245/12020 


NG 


2 




HEECHIA, JOSEPH 


1201988 


240/242 


MIST 


3 




PAEI-.EDUARDO 
NUYGEN,BAN 


1205141 
1211781 


23152 A 
23152(A) 


G 
MIST 


4 


Count: 




7 




SANTOS 


FELL, TONI 
WANG, JIAN 


1201222 
1204794 


459 
245/664/187 


G 
G 


3 




LEE, ANDREW 


1197235 


192/12021 


G 


4 


Count: 




3 




SCHENONE 


DELUCCA, ROBERT 


1172603 


484 


G 


1 




TROSS, STEVEN 


1178621 


12025(A) 


NG 


2 




BARRETT, JAHES 
ADAMS, ROBERT 
JACKSON.LISA 


1168672 
1205371 
1125221 


23152 A 

314,1 
192(C)(2) 


G 

MIST 

MIST/1385 


3 




FOSTER, SIDNEY 
DANIELS, BOBBY 
SHERMAN, LENNIE 


1189695 
1189566 
1209255 


23152 AH/14601 
1291/148/647F 
23152 AH 


NG/G 

NG 

NG/G 


4 


Count: 




8 




SHELTZER 


PAREDES.JOSE 
DELCASTILLO, RANDALL 


1107214 
1158062 


11350 

11379 


G 
G 


2 


Count: 




2 




TRUJILLO 


REESE, WILLIE 


1167215 


245 


G 


1 




DISREALI, ELLISON 


1151335 


424,1 


G 


2 




MOORE, DEHETRIUS 


120644 1 


212,5 


G 


4 


Count: 




3 




WALLACE 


ALEMAN.RUDY 
PEYSER, RANDAL, G 


1137780 
1158135 


245A/243/203 
212,5/10851/236/207/245 


NG 

G 


1 




TRAN, THANH 


1160900 


245 


NG 





Count: 



rials 
Year 1989-90 

Attorney Defendant Case Charge Verdict Quarter 

WEBER COLLINS, MICHAEL 1135265 23152 G 1 

Count: 1 

Count: 184 



MISDEMEANOR TRIALS 



12 



MISDEMEANOR TRIALS 
Fiscal Year 1989-90 



Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 


Charge 


Verd 


ict 


Quarter 


AMABILE 


BROWN, AARON 


1170705 


591/602 


G 




1 




FORT, SHIRLEY 


1179168 


647B 


G 








RAY, SANDRA 


1172041 


666 


G 








PALMA.LUIS 


1083301 


459 


MIST 








HIXON,RISA 


1171747 


23152 


G 




2 




BOURBON, VICTOR 


1182480 


23152 


G 








THOMAS , ALBERT 


1195664 


243B 


NG 








ALLUMS, STEVEN 


1211185 


243/11364/148 


G 




3 




KENNEDY 


1181333 


23152 


NG 








DEBARDELEBEN, KELLY 


1194830 


647B 


G 




4 




STITTS,MARK 


1219385 


273.5/245 


G 






Count: 




11 




CAFFESE 


VIGIL, SELINA 


1122509 


23152/14601. 1A 


G 




1 


Count: 




1 




CHAN , R 


LOIODICI, JOSEPH 


1134575 


417A/136.1 


NG 




1 


Count: 




1 




CHIEN 


DOLLEN, JASON 


1118524 


10852 


MIST 




2 




RAMIREZ, ERNESTO 


1204841 


23152/14601 


MIST 




3 




LIVINGSTON, MARK 


1094936 


23152/23103/2800.1 


NG 




4 




STERLING, DENITA 


1220741 


647B 


NG 








BUNCUM, KENNETH 


1139214 


273a2/242 


G/NG 






Count: 




5 




COHEN 


NUEVA, EUGENE 


1172647 ' 


23152 A&B 


G 




2 




FRANK, THOMAS 


1172409 


23152 A&B 


G 








DIXON, JOHN 


1203781 


417.2/242 


MIST 




3 




PACHECO,MARIO 


12090^6 


23152 A 


NG 




4 




REEVES, RODNEY 


1202938 


14601.1(A) 


MIST 






Count: 




5 




COX 


SANCHEZ, RAUL 


1232065 


417 


NG 




4 




KUMAR,AVINDO 


1226924 


243.4 


G 








JONES, MICHAEL 


1224578 


10851/23152/20002 


NG/MIST/G 




Count: 




3 




FERNANDEZ 


VELASQUEZ, ALEX 


1155019 


245A(1) 


MIST 




1 




ARCE , FRANK 


1172686 


11550 


NG 








DELCAMPO, MICHAEL 


1151562 


245 


MIST 




2 



MISDEMEANOR TRIALS 
Fiscal Year 1989-90 



Attorney 



Defendant 



Case 



Charge 



Verdict Quarter 



FERNANDEZ 



Count: 
GAUGER 

Count: 
IVERSON 



ARCE, DANIEL 
KETTUD.KANSHAI 
PARKER .ANTHONY 

WASHINGTON, BRUCE 



MAAS, PATRICIA 
WARD, STEVEN 



RISLEY, CLARA 
SIMPSON, LUTHER 

SCHLAFKE, WILLI AM 
LAUBENTHAL,JON 

KENNEDY, KENNETH 



Count: 




MAAS 


MATTEONI.BART 


Count: 




NICCO 


JOYCE, SEAN 


Count: 




NOVACK 


ALLUMS, STEVEN 


Count: 




PERDUE 


OREL LAN A, LUIS 




MARIN, FRANK 




CURT IS, GREGORY 




SPEECH, ABRAHAM 



MELINQUIAS.VIRAY 

CONLEY.LISA 
FEES , KENTON 
MART INEZ, VICTOR 
BAISLEY, LAWRENCE 
MEYERS, MARTY 

JUSTIN, LINDA 
ARAMBULA, EDDIE 
CONSTSANT, RICHARD 



1184187 
1136909 
1175226 

1165901 



1206172 
1212381 



23152 A&B 

23152 

23152(a) 

415/148 



484/490.5 
23152 A 



1160155/1152428 647B 
1152657/1149112 12020/653(K) 



1193004 
1161378 

1214356 



1177125 



1211749 



1215755 



1167218 
1132474 
1151245 
1169822 

1185474 

1166437 
1183844 
1190922 
1208717 
1207375 

1201160 
1263916 
1222776 



594/148 
666 

23152 A&B 



242 



12031 



487.2 



23152B 

417a 

23152A/14601.1A 

242 

23152 

647B 
23152A 
23152 A&B 
273.5/242 
273.5/242 

21950/192 

23152(A) 

273.5/242 



NG 

G 

NG 

NG 





7 




G 




r 


NG 




4 




2 




G 




2 


NG 






G 




3 


G 






G 




4 




5 




NG 




2 




1 




MIST 




4 


G 


1 


3 



G 1 

MIST 

G 

NG 

MIST 2 

G 3 

G 

NG 

NG 

NG 

NG 4 

NG 

G 



Count: 



13 



MISDEMEANOR TRIALS 
Fiscal Year 1989-90 



Attorney 


Defendant 


Case 


Charge 


Verdict 


Quarter 


QUI NONES 


McCANTS, WILLI AM 


1172137 


242/404 


G 


1 




SIKORA,JOHN 


1110647 


23152A&B 


G 


2 




GLOSEN, CHARLES 


1193201 


666/148/417 


G 


3 




HAYNES, LANCE 


1226588 +6 


cases 537A/484/459 


G 


4 




COYLE, JOHN 


1190231 


23152 A 


G 




Count: 


5 




RAPPAPORT 


MOLINA, 


1172999 


484/243/148 


G 


1 




ALVAREZ , 


1164628 


148/243 


G 






CMIEN, 


1170983 


417 


G 






BAILEY 


1153608 


23152 A&B 


MIST 


2 




GAMBOL, J 


1187726 


12025/12031 


G 






SANRAMON.A 


1175074 


594 


MIST 






JACKSON, EMI TT 


1168246 


11550 


NG 






HECTOR, HARRY 


1207716 


245/242 


G 


3 




AKZAM,JOHN 


1183877 


23152 A&B 


G 






ABJSARA.TARCA 




487/490.5 


G 






WILTZ,STALETTO 


1202038 


594 Al 


NG 






BANZON, ROLANDO 


1210900 


20002 


G 


4 




WARN , PETER 


1239395 


417(a)(1) 


NG 






WILSON, WELCY 


1225143 


192 


G 




Count: 


14 




ROWE 


PLEMMONS , JOHN 


1150590 


417 


G 


1 




BROCKELHURST , MI CHAEL 


1175996 


417 


G 






JONES, CLARENCE 


1155378 


10851 


G 






AMARJIT,SEIHI 


1193282 


245/12020 


NG 


2 




REECHI A, JOSEPH 


1201988 


240/242 


MIST 


3 




NUYGEN,BAN 


1211781 


23152(A) 


MIST 


4 




PAEZ , EDUARDO 


1205141 


23152 A 


G 




Count: 


7 




SCHENONE 


DELUCCA, ROBERT 


1172603 


484 


G 


1 




TROSS , STEVEN 


1178621 


12025(A) 


NG 


2 




ADAMS, ROBERT 


1205371 


314.1 


MIST 


3 




BARRETT, J AMES 


1168672 


23152 A 


G 






JACKSON, LISA 


1125221 


192(C)(2) 


MIST/1385 






SHERMAN, LENN IE 


1209255 


23152 A&B 


NG/G 


4 




FOSTER, SIDNEY 


1189695 


23152 A&B/14601 


NG/G 






DANIELS, BOBBY 


1189566 


1291/148/647F 


NG 





MISDEMEANOR TRIALS 
Fiscal Year 1989-90 

Attorney Defendant Case Charge Verdict Quarter 



Count: 8 

WEBER COLLINS, MICHAEL 1135365 23152 G 1 

Count: 1 

Count: 90 



a r r 8$ 



281150