THE EFFECT OF METHODS AND RATES OF COMPENSATION ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT CRIMINAL APPELLANTS PRIEHS, RICHARD EDWARD 1997 Pro%st. INFORMATION TO USERS mammmwmmmmm. UM! fihmthetandincdyfi‘omtheofigimlorcopym Mm MMWWthMMMmM fiommwofmm- ‘l'llcqulityofthhnpndlcfla hdepndatqnnthequlkyoflhe copynbuitted. Bmknuhfidnawhmlotedorpoorqmlhy InthemfikdymmmewthorfidnmdeMaoomplae mmwiptmddu'emufiuingmmwiflbenomd. Also,if mwmwmumamwmm thedeletion. Ovasizemaials(e.g,mpa,dnwmchm)mreprodmdby secfionhgtheofigimeegiminguthcuppalefi-hmdmmd confiningfi'omlefltotiglnineqmlnctiomwithmllovahps. Each ofigindisdwphotogaphedhonewmisiwhdedinreduced fonnatthebwkofthebook. Photomhsinchndedintheofigimlmamsaipthlvebemreproduced xerognphiallyinthiscopy. mglIrqudhyfxyblackmdwhite photognpln'cpfinuareavfilableformyphotognpborflhmuiom nppafingintliscopyforanaddifiomlchnrge. ComalMdirwdyto order. UNII ABefltHaw-ell 111mm 300Nonhhabmmm MI 48106-134605A 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE EFFECT OF METHODS AND RATES OF COMPENSATION ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT CRIMINAL APPELLANTS By mamas A DISSERTATION Submitted to School of Criminal Justice 1997 afi?fififl” UMI Number: 9734174 Copyright 1997 by Priehs, Rlchard Edward Alddhsuumnd. lmflhflauhnn9nlnfl CquflullflnhbyEMDIhumuw;AldUlqurwd. Tiblfludhnnedflalbpuwuud umuflnflufl uphn copyinguldu'l'IIIel7,UnhedSuu-5Code. UMI snowman-a AmArbor,Ml“l03 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF METHODS AND RATES OF COMPENSATION ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT CRIMINAL APPELLANTS By RichardE.Priehs ltkwiddybdievedwmemodsamwofcompemafionmdirecdyrchwdwdw qualiyofahnhnldcfemeaflappeflnerepmfion—Mundemidmumelpeflombss mustyjnflbofmemofmmuiflmlfonhehdimmmcomlmive. Mhthefimdgnificammflyofappofludappdmmb’behaviorundervuymg Wm. Cmdaigmwdlppdhmmlhuichimmmplmvefified‘SWofSenim' fomxaMngmspecificwmkperfomedomednirrepmcmfionmmhnsJewkesm recordedintonlhounandmmedbymgories (e.g.. cliem visitation. briefing. modomlevideminry Magywpaofmicemcomimntwfihmchigm's ‘Minimum WMMmcmmAppdhnDefmem.” Aaorneysarepaidbythelocal mmmacopyofdnirmicafomismhnmdekhigmAppeumAnigmd CameISetviceMAACS),amagcncy.Mfonnsmslfisaspanningtwo calendar yamarednbasisfonhismch. Shchkhigan'sbulcmvarymkedlyinmeirmhodsandmofpayfor www.mewdanfiermoppommhymamlyumehnputofmguon petfomnme.1'hreeptirnnymethodsofcompmdonmmflyzedz hourly. bourlywith mimnnlimimiom.mdfee~schedule(i.e.,flatme). Serviceswetcmenmamredwithin each mahod by comparing vuying ms of compensation (e.g. . high versus low hourly work efforts). Comparisom consisted often! melnhours. Germfly. high compensation rates were dwflflowermwegnrdleuofthemahodemployed. IbeprhnuyhypothesisbmadiflaminmofcomemafionamongMichigan’s Michichcnhxdonotremhhdicpuuemioestohfligem.kamer. ‘mleMw'mum dutcx'utinglinenmucoofmn .eremplnsizestherehtiomhipofmomeypcrfomnceand WmmorhgmeWOfpmfeabmahinmommmem, androlemisfiction. Thefindinglmnglymggeuthndummdmahodsofcompensadngappeflne Wforhdigenummflddmknmdmmhnfiveofperfommefiewimm memgfiflkhldminmgmuymmmmmeommdenblymm mutation. Sinoewageearenotexphmfiveofbehaviorotbetfactorsmunbeexploredto wwwmkbehvbrofewnappomeppeflmwel.kohmwwpmvides abukforfiumueprndonofemypetfommerehfivemdnirmdigemappeflate clian. Capyrisht by W a. Priehs 1997 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my Wife, Noncy Lou. my daughter, Kerianne, and all the supportive faculty and Met Saginaw Valley State University. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS lolfermysheeteapprec'ndonmdiefolhwinghflividmlswhopmvidedmethe oppormnitymeonpletethiswork: Tomywife.NmylALdaughcr,Kethnne.uflmodnr.Vioh,forthehundamnding andpaienee. TomychhpamDr.GIrBtopherE.Smhh,forhelpingmecowepnnlizemkprojea anddevelopatheoretieelbue.flismpport.profeesiomlism. availabilityandpromptreeponses tomypliglnweteseeondtonooe. Tomydiseertstionconlnhee.br. MerryMoruh. Dr.CleoCherryholmes.andDr. mammmmmwmmmmmm significalllystrengtlnmdtheseopeanddepdiofdiiswork. Tomyinifislchshpermsndedvisor,thehtebr.kobenijamwicz.whooffered wwmmmdmhbpmmthmhmedwelmofmy (Immune. Tomyeolleague,Dr.TylerHsyneeoszgimealleySmeUniversity.forhisitmnense efiominasisdngmewihpmgnmingflhrgedefibuseandmfisdcaflycmnpflingme m.flereedflyavailedhhnselfandallmsiastiaflymppatedthiswork. Tomycdlelglns.Dr.KemethGewetfl1,Dr.GanyJohm.andDr.SteveSepmkiof Saginaw ValleySnteUnlvetsity. for theirpstienceinallowingmeto regularly explore d1e mnnesnddireetionofthiseffort. vi TonypmfessionalsnffofLofiWilliamsmdSamSu'obelfortheirdrelessworkon behalfofdlis'allthnmbs'mcher. Tommmflurinfloneycheehforherconfinuflsewicemspeciauy with «assembly. ToBIrbenLevinendhernsfiuhfichigmAppeflsteAsfignedCounselService for thlr'ntgdlfirmlnawledge,ndemhusism. Thankyou! vii TABLE OF CONTENTS US'I‘OF'I‘ABLES ................................................ xi CHAPTER! MODUC‘I'IONTOTHBSTUDY ..................................... l StatemenofProbleln ............................................ l PurpoeeoftheStndy ............................................ 4 WWofdieSmdy .................................. 8 Wotan-Study ......................................... lo Michigan'sAwellateSyateln ................................... 10 MmmnnEthiealAppellateStandards ............................. 13 ' ......................................... l4 Eeonomiclnplieanom ....................................... 15 CHAPTER2 REVIEWOFTHEUI’ERATURE ..................................... 17 Introduction ................................................. l7 HistoricalAmeeedetas .......................................... l7 IndigeuDefense/AppellateSerVIeeDehvel-ySystems ...................... 21 Public Defender Systems ..................................... 21 Assigned(orAppoined)COImelSym .......................... 22 Contract .......................................... 23 'I‘he'l‘rendTowaannvatinnon .................................... 24 SynemConstnim ............................................ 29 PrivaueversusPublicCotmael .................................. 29 Caseloads ............................................... 30 Compensation ............................................ 33 WW ........................................... 37 PolmealRelationshipe ....................................... 40 TheRoleofthe Profession! ...................................... 42 AnOverview ............................................. 42 RoleandAppellateCamel ................................... 43 RoleandPublicDefetalen .................................... 45 RoleandtheLegalProfeesion-General ........................... 46 Roleandludicial Behavior .................................... 47 RoleandOtherServieeProfeeeiom .............................. 49 Effects of Constraints on Role Behavior ............................... 49 TheAnomey—Clientllelationship ................................ 49 1heWorkEm/ironmeta ...................................... 51 Burnout ................................................ 52 Ineffective Assistance of Coumel ................................ 53 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH APPROACH: HYPOTHESES AND METHODS ................... S7 lmoduction ................................................. 57 Sandy 1mm .............................................. S7 Caselnformstionmrtl) ..................................... 58 Feelnfomtion—Services Rendereda’artll) ........................ 58 Feelnfonnation—Acnnlfixpensesmattll) ......................... 59 OrderforPayma’artm) ................................... 59 Hypotheses ................................................. 59 Methodology ................................................ 61 Data Collection ........................................... 64 DiscussionofSystelnTypes ................................... 65 Plea-Based versus Trial-Based Appeals ............................ 68 PopulanonSelection Rationale .................................. 68 HourlySystelns (WithoutMaxnmtnants) ......................... 70 Hourly Systems (With Maxinann Linus) ........................... 72 Pee-Schedule Systems ....................................... 72 Data-Analys’nT ' ........................................ 74 VerackyofAmoI-neys’ Repodeouts ............................... 76 CHAPTER4 PRESENTATION OF DATA ........................................ 79 Introduction ................................................. 79 RentltsonypothesesTestingAtnongHourlyRatePleaAmeals .............. 79 ResultsonypotheseeTestingAmongHmnlyRateTfialAppeals .............. 80 ReultsonypothesesTestingAmonglnn-cirwitflomlyRaIePleaAppeals ...... 85 Reultsot‘HyWesTectingofl-lwrly versusl-lourly withMaxinaunLhnitatiom Plea Appeals ............................................. 88 RemltsonypodiesisTesfingofHaulyversmHmflywithMathunLhnitadon Trial Appeals ............................................. 90 ReutltsonypothesisTestimoinghversusLowPleaFeeSdsedule ........... 91 RemitsofCompsrisonsofallThreeSym—Hourly. HourlywithLimitations. and Fee-Schedules ............................................ 93 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF DATA ............................................. 97 Introduction ................................................. 97 Hourly Systems .............................................. 97 Hourly Systems—Ima-Circuit .................................... 101 Hourly Systems with Maxinann Limitatiom ........................... 101 Fee-Schedules .............................................. 103 AnAggregateComparisonofAll'l‘hreeMajorSystems ................... 104 CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................... 105 Compensationand Performance ................................... 105 Polmyhmhcatiom ........................................... 108 MethodsofFunding ....................................... 108 StateversusLocalCom-ol ................................... 109 NeedforQualitquxeseuation ............................... 109 RoleTheory ................................................ 111 W ............................................. lll ProfessionalStandards ...................................... 112 FremencyofServlces ................................... 113 DivisionofServices .................................... 117 Polncallnfluences ........................................ 119 PeerandOrganintionalExpectanom ............................ 120 RoleCongruence ......................................... 120 CominneutoCIienr ...................................... 121 Selflnerests ............................................ 121 CHAPTER? LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. 123 RangedCotnpemstion ........................................ 123 Methodsot‘Analysis .......................................... 123 Completeneesostta ......................................... 123 ChoicesandOptions .......................................... 124 TheBalsncingEfiect .......................................... 124 ludicialCoutraims ........................................... 125 TheExperlenceFactor ......................................... 125 Conclusion ................................................. 126 APPENDDIA.AppelIateAssignedCounselFeesbyCircuit ................... 127 APPENDDKRMAACSSmuofServiceandOrderforPaymedemmAppoimed Counsel ................................................... 133 APPENDIXC AttorneySurveyandCoverLeuer .......................... 135 LISTOFREFERENCES .......................................... 137 CASEREFERENCES ............................................ 150 Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 ' Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 LISTOI'TADLES Survey .............................................. 78 Hom'lyPleaCircuits ..................................... 81 Realms of Atllysis of Variance (ANOVA). Three-way Imeraction for Hom'lyl’leaAppealsusmga955C01fidencemal ........... 82 RmhaoftheTwoSsnpleT¢stsfoerrlyPleaAppealsUsinga95$ Confidencehaerval .................................. 82 HourlyTlialCircuits ..................................... 83 Results of Amlys'u of Variance (ANOVA). Three-way Interaction for HounlyTrialAmealsUsinga955Confidencelnterval ........... 84 ResultsofmeTwoSanpleT-mstsforHourlyTrialAppealsUsingafiié Confidenceltaerval .................................. 84 Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Fair-way lint-action wldu'n OnearadtJorHourlyPleaAppealsUsimafifirConfidence Imerval .......................................... 86 ReatltsofTwoSsmpleT-mta. LowvanghuWnOnearaat for HourlyPleaAppealsUsingaSlSSConfidemelmet-val ........... 86 Results of Amlysis of Variance (ANOVA). Four-way Interaction within Onearcldt.forHourlyWAppealsUsmga9S% Confidence Interval .......................................... 87 ReuiltsofTwoSanpleT-tests. LowversusHighwidtanne Circuit, for HmrlyWAppealsUamga95%ConfideweMet-val ........... 87 Hourly with Maximum Limitations Plea Circuits .................. 89 Results of the Two Sample T-teet for Hourly versus Hourly with Limirr Plea Appeals. (95% CI.) .................................. 89 Hourly with Maximum Limitation Trial Circuits ................... 90 xi Table 4.14 Tabb 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Results of the Two Sample T—teet for Hourly versus Hourly with limits Trial Appeals. (95% CI.) .................................. 91 FeeScheduleCircuits .................................... 92 MofmeTwoSatmleT-testsforflighvmwaee-Scheduleflea aldTrialAmesls. ................................... 92 lentils of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Three-way Interaction for Hourly. HourlywithLimitations.amiI-‘eeSchedules forallPleaaml WCirwttsCombined. ............................... 94 StmryofResnlts ..................................... 95 PleaCircuits-ASlmary ................................ 100 TrialCircuits—ASImnry ............................... 100 FremencyofServices—(Percemageof’fonl Cases) ............... us DivisionofServices—(PercemageofTotalT'nne) ................. 118 xii CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION'IOTHESTUDY Sumatran TheAmericancrhnimljudcesysunfacesdificuhpmblemmanamdngmdesign mmmmwmmfmmmm olfenden.mmeflonmanflyumhproblanandcomibtmmhnpmmnem,mhdissemuon mmmmmmmammmmmmm Michiganihehperfmmmewmhemvbwedmrdafionmemblimedpmfeubmlsmndam forappellatecounsel. TheUnhedSnm'legdsymhadverurial.Cemalmmissystemkmeadvocacy moddwha'emerepreeemfiveeformemwmnomordhuiaanomeyshndforme defendamwdemecmeocompecmcmvmcemejiflgemjurymmehperspecdvesonme casearerhecorrectones.Asoneconsnetaatorhssoheerved: Thephilosophybehmdtheadveraarysyuemholdsmatthegreatestmnnber ofjuatresohttionsinallforeseeablecrhnhnlu'ialswillocuuwhenboth sidesareaflowedtoarguetheircaseseffectivelyandvocifemuslybeforea fairsmlimpufialjmyflhsystunmuiresfladvocatesfofloduidesdo meirunnost,withinciebumdariessetbylawandprofessionalethic5Jo prwctandadvancethehuereetsofmeirwemsflheadvocscymodelmakes dearthstltisnotmejobofthedefemeortheprOWmtojudgetheguflt ofanydefendant.Hence,evendefenseattomeyswhoareconvincedofmeir cliesn'sguihareexhortedmofferthebestpossibledefemeandtocotmsel meirclietasasefl'ectivelyaspossible (Schmalleget, p. 341). Intheadversarialmodel,itishnportamforthedefendantaswellasthestatetoreceive high-qtnfityreprmmadon.1histepreeemfionisneededanmympmmmefighm guaranteedtothedefendamundertheU.S. Consdtution. butalsoto ensure that reliable I 2 Wofgufltlhnhmeapplicadonofaimmalpunislnemmmosewhodesewe uhnhnlnmdommmhknmmlymeacamdwhoshmldheconcemedahuumeqmmy ammmammmmmmmmwm mamhmmmmm.wm.m misapplicationofcorrectiomlresources. hiwidelymcognizedbycrinhnljuflcesehohnMdnadvuaarhlmodelismideal whichhmtneeeuasflyhmdwhhmlkymasdaflaflyumeuisllevelhckermmm mudnAmuicsnsysunhprimdlya‘CrheComdModd”chancmizedbyprennnpdom ofguihramermmofimcenceJhesyuunplacesapremhmonspeedandfimlky. evidunedbyemamdmsrflywidespreadpla-hrgammgofmnmermanmonmdmm- findingpmceuu.Pnkermggmmemngeofm‘sssanbly4hewuveyorbeh'movingan emiessstreamofcasesquicklyandefliciefllym,p.42-44). TheuailnsBmmeCrhneComrolModdhmeDuercessidealwhichanphasinsa fumaeedfornhabbm-findmgpmcmwacker,p.45).1hisneedcanonlybe mppliedbyadequatetepreaetaatlon 'Ofallthecomrovemdaspectsofthecrimimlprocess. mefigHmcamel.mcltflingmemleofgovuuneminhspmvhiomismemoadepmdemon whatme’smodelofmeprocesslooblike. . ."(Pacher,p. 51). Atmeappeflatelevdmowevenmeidalofmeadverufidmodelismomreadflyseen. Unlikeuhlhvelancoma.deamhndmrmghprweuaofhrgamingandcomem,moa appdhcusesacmsnypmceedmcwnfmdhpmmonfoflowmgprepanfionandpresemdom bytheadversar‘nlparties. Writing formemajorhyhmlam(l985).lusdce31ennanassertedmatskmw camelwuindispmabbfmmeahnmsldefendamaeefingmchsnengehhconvicdon: Tomorectrtetlnappealmcrhninflappellantnntflfaceanadnrsary pmceedingthanliltean'ialegovernedbyintricatemleamattoalay person would be hopelessly forbidding. An unrepmented appellant. like an 3 umepresetaeddefendamattrisl—istnabletopmtectthevitalinterestsat stake. . . .rTJhepromiseofDouglasthatacrimimldefendamlnsarightto cotmselonappeal—lihethepmmiseofoideonthstacrhninaldefendamhas arlglatocmmselatn'ial—wwldheafilnlegesnuetmlessitcomprehended theriglatotheeffectiveassistameofcotmselMassermn. l984.p. 21). 1heU.S.SqruneCmntstaudh1aFMAmenthnaa“equalprotection"ofthe law ...whesetherlchman...emoystlnbenefitofcmel'sexatninationinto durecm'daeseatchofthelamandmrshallingofargmnemsonhis behalf. . .whiletheindigeta...isforcedtoshinforhimself.1‘he haligem.whentherecordisunclesrortheermnarehidden.lmcnlytbe rlflatoameaninglessrimalfiflmrepresemdxwhiletherichmhasa WWW. 1963. p- 359)- Themoufioruhninslappeabcsnbenacedbackmmetwelflhcemuy.1helmesgeof legalpreeedemhdenfledmanme—Hmmfomwmgaamionof mmblkhhguhbkvdflghufmmdigaamhnhnldefendams.mmm (1963)mandatedappointedcotmel.uponreqiest, fortheoffender'sfirsuppealasanntterof moans). Anavaihhlesmucesmggeumadmstednmetypercaaofcrhninsldefendaminme qutedSmesarechssifidindigeulxnfomlm,p. 164). Yenbeginningwithfijdmnx. W(l963),whenmhnigemsweregramedflgmmbgalassisnme,dn&mreme Catutlnsneveresublishedstandsrdsof‘quality' forappohnedcomselltmlememationof micamchsdhigcouandmnlhycomideradomnmlefimmandbcdgovemmm. Awadhledeingsymambasedmfiefisalandpolhicflmmidenfiomofkmbe providers(e.g..thecmulty).Rarelyisthereinputfromtheservicerecipients(i.e., defendam/appellam)ormeiradvocsms. Arguably,judges.courtadminisu'ators.statesndlocal governingbodies, barsssociations. andmepublicallshareresponsibility for "quality" of representation. 4 Wuhficfiulsforappeflatecrhdmldefemeworkismpomdarwfllocal comm.fidga.andmpayua.1hu.appeuanmuemondfifiammobnm dnnftmdsforindsgemtnslworltaevme 1992. p. 142, 145). Withthepreannptionof mmmmflusmsymmeappdmprmaslessimpom—a seuehfmbgal‘bophohsffimhanmrymhchrd’stmeComrolModelwhich depelflsm‘speedandlinlhy'm.42).Appabemmmeahnmflfiuflceproccssaw.if mmmmummm. humanism? Thbmdybhlendedmprwidehsighsimomemkbehaviorofmmfor hidigeuainhnlappdhm—ampicwhichhuwceivedliukamfionhomxhohnmshmud aboasiumfiudnrmdasnndhgmebehaviorofuhHwelcamelformeindigem.whem Whmmeqnlhyofdnhperfommemdervariaucompemauonsymhasbeen mconchtsivemlemming, 1989.p.403). mmmmmmmmmmmma dflfuemamcompamfimandasebads.0vuworkedandmnemaiddefendemhmedune whichhssprontptedmoumidiesofitfligan'cmmek'perfonmwe.8yconuan.mis WMBdinctcdexchfivdyucompumofpubhdyappoimedappeuam mmdadgnificaflydifieremwnpemsfimsymmemiumgdnmchermbeaer isolatednmmaaofwaga(AmendixA)mspecifieworkpufomnce(AppendkB). ReseamhmmlebehaviorofappeMcmmelhsevaelylhnited.Wasserman’sbook (1990).detailedmChaptedJsprhnafllyanovetviewofappeuatepncficesinNewYork City.pmvidinginsightshaomatsystetnandmggesdonsforitshnpmvemem. He acknowledges unthiswork‘oflersOMyflwdngglmipcesofmeretainedappeflatebu...andthe 5 Widuakwlwfacednchallengesandpresnues.Acloserlmkwonbemefiuform inegratedviewofcrhninalappellatepractice" (p.256). Reseamhmrolesofomeraeypudcipmmmecrhninfljtmpmcesshubeenmore mansive.inehaiingjudic'nl(6ibson. 1978,1983;Beclter, 1964)andfederalmagistrams' behavior(Smlth. 1988;8eron. 1983, 1985;Puro, 1976). Inaddition. trialcounselhavebeen bmadlymflbd(Chapu2).11nmoucommmedndofcompafingauorneyperformmeis “outcome" meanlretnetas(Cavender. NienstedtatEverett. 1987; Stover& Echn. 1975). Otmcome-buedremlu,however,fiflmadeqtmelymdnqmlhyandefionofme WW(¢.3.,wmu1dcmvicfionand/mnmence)ofmhypomedally idemicalcaseamsybednsunelegardleuofcmmeb’elfommrepresemdon.m dissertationsmdywillreview.forthefirstt'nne.keymvaflables (e.g..timedevotedto Webmmcmmmodomhndpumhcmrbomofmespecificworkm bowbdgeandunbrmndmgof‘mbmeoq.'anmposuionmwhichmofpmfessiom areofiengruuaiedmiddle. 1979b. p. 314). Aminudefinifionofmleh‘mmebebavioucharaaerisficsofonemmonpermmina context“ (Biddle. 1979b. p. 58). Abroaderexplanationisoffetedby Levy: [Roleislanypositiondifietentiatedintermsofagivensocialmicmre whetherthepositionbeinstimtionsliaedornot. . . .Thesocialpositionfis] giventotheindividual. . . .‘I'heserohsinvolveobligatiom,rights.and expectedperformanceaofme individuakwhoholdthemu952. p. 159). Hollalllerwrites: Rolesarenormativeinmattheyinvolvesomeimplicitsharedexpcctancy amonggrmtpmembetsnndnormmeuuelves. lackingvisibility.may nonetheless dwell inexpectancies(l958. p. 118). Role “expectation” are the conceptual bridge spanning role behavior and social structures (Sarbin & Allen, 1968. p. 497). Expectations relative to “professions” have been the subject of 6 mmiderafleruamhmcamedhdmmrlhofesiomhavebemdescnbeduwccupauom mmmmmmmmem,mmemm bngperiodsofminmgandwhoseauoe'nmdmhacndmbeperfomedmpdvuefihecrm 'm'mnm,masmwmmormmmromorm goverm'ngtherolethstareenforcedby'aameubeta' (Biddle, l979b,p.314). Robberypulnmstmebehsviorofthemdividmlhahapedbymmemmfactors:me denmdsatalmluofodmmmerewatdsandnmuomfordnacmr’sbehaviormndme W'sthWWJflWMMMW's mmmmmmmaumr'swmmmm (Biddle, 1979a, p. 17; Callero, Home Piliavin,1987). Biddkdbamsmyschohnwhomflmedmthedevdopmemofroletheorbiese imbue: earlymeorbtsnchasburkhehn(1893)‘writingonmedivisionof1abor; Slmner's(l906)well-knownd'suncdonbetweenfolkwaysversusmoresand clnncterlsticsofpreecriptivephenomem; James (1890), Baldwin (1897). andCooley (1902) whoadvancedthetheory ofself; Piaget (1932) in analyzingmlesandconplyingbehsvionbewey(l922)focusedonhabit andconduct;andMaine(1861)whohuroducedmeideaofstams(Biddle. 1979a.p.4-5). Therearemmermnaddiiomlconuibtmmmetheoryofmlemowevenmeabove- mcdscbolanemployedconcepuwhichmivetodayorwhichhavethehmodem cancerpartsinpreseu-dayroletbcorym. 1979a).Comemponrythcoristsalsomclude Davis(1949)htrmerexplorh1gstann;Homam(l950)onnormsandbehavlor; Sarbin's (1954) workmmhemcmuawimmhasismaeflcomepuandxahn’suwwwmrding roleconflictwithinorganlastions.’ 'Precmsorscitedarefoundinthebibliographyattheendofthetext. zAuthors citedare found inthebibliography attheendofthe text. 7 Roleconceptsaremedwhenamdyingpolitical.ecommic. legal.andotherinstinxtions. Thethcemflaignificuneformedbcblhnsofpsycmmgy,mcblogy.ammbgy. playhigamoreprommctarolewhensmdymgthe‘helpingprofessions” (Biddle. 1979b. p. 11—12).n1chascrimhnldefemeMappellatework. ThemHs)ofnhlandappdhrecanlelforhafigaacrhnhnldefendamuesimflarin bwawcb-ecommicm(l.e..mondeummedmbehdlcem);meumlecmadwmrhl mdugovam(l.e..prueamldiflriams);methsnnihremialmmof perfomameuguidesnnddzyseekdnomdcalmnprocusofhwbyudmnlyadvocanng However.appeflatecomndprhmrflysearchmdiscovermormmenialcmMpmcessa . marmayhaveaflectedtheouccme(l.e..convictionand/orsemence).'l'hroughmepmceasof namcriptreview.bgflruamh.facmlam.smmembmhsionofwrinenbrieh. appelhtecmelueoftenviewedupaperadvocamsmcemeydonotacnnuyuyme comedase.hMichigan.evenordargtmembefonmeCmnoprpeahisfimitedma ashamofwmhsna;miewbemgbasedprhnafilymatbmimcdwfinenbfiefsandmm ofrecord. l.e..trisluanscripts(MichiganRulesofCourt. 1994. p. 617). smceappdhmcmmelameuaaifllygamerhlgmformdomreeeamhingmndwfifing, meymayhsvehncliemmuactthmnialcmmsd.befendamsuepmemnausignificam phmddnhhlproceuhchsdhgamigm.modom.andm;ameappeflatemge. uleutmhlichigannehhercmmflmrawdhms'pmencebefonmeCounoprpuhis wenWethehappunmemyoflyhenecassaryforhwercmmmofiom/evidenfiary hearings murdertodeveloporclarify issues. Investigation and/or evidentiary hearings may be essential for developing “off the record" lenses For example, attorney/client conversations preceding pleas are typically not part of the recorded transcript. Wasserman reminds us that 8 ‘uhlcuuumkracahighkvelofcoudomdecepuomandbadrepresemuonmmeplea- Marne-(Film 1967.1:- 240:W_Lflam- 1978111113. appellant counclmsybeadvuurislmhercmmpannmeuhllevel.parumhdyin‘gufltyplu' enawhueappdhudaimshemcehedimropaadviceflomhbmmy(i.e..m.mepla wasiaitofl'ered'hnowmgly"). Amoroeylcliesuconversationsptecedingplessaretypicallynot onmyncordedmiatHa-bummeaacome,whichohentypifiescrhnmaluifl whimymemmappalflhereforeWcmlmlmkingforenor whichprefisdicedmefahneaofdnuthlealmmgpmceas.whfleuialcmmel's role 'mcludesavoidingitasoductionoferror. Ufibmmemiglamhavecomwahthepmr, Midgeuothacmmmumeuhllevelmeeyfomgoorflargtmbefom meSmAppelkteCmmnbconceivahlematmpersomlcomwfllocauwimanyaaonin mesysun.maddhion.sinceappennecmunelmyacceptcuesmywhemmme8me.nis mummmmmmmmw.wmmum daflywakvuymnhmlaanahouguflilysimihr—machkve‘himessofprm'mrme defetflamlappdhmmmaemmnyofmefindmgsmmismidymyhaveappfluuon mptmlidyhmdeduhlcmdmaddhionmqpeflateanomeysmhbelievedmnmany crhnmalauormysdobmhublaUsppeflamwork.AccOMingly,merenfluofmhmrch unyhaveapplicationtobothroles. WFWMGMSTUDY Thecomonlyheldbeliefmsthwym'dahemmxhnizewnmgsbrepwedlychedas anfiomleforrethnedsewicaprovidedbyauormyswindigemcfiemsmgulies. 1989; Alscher, 1975; 1986; 13mm. 1967; State Bar. 1990. p. 2). Indigent defendams have a parallel perspective. believing cwn-sppoimed counsel are overly eager to abbreviate time spent 9 onmeircasea,withllnleconcernfortheirwelfare(Daniels. 1992;Casper, 1978;Platt& Pollack. l974).1evinereferstctheconceptas “fiscal self-preservation” (October 1993. p. 12). Shnihflyuuwneysenvisionanhtimflfmbuweenecomicsandjobsaisfacdm (Planing 1986).Otherprofessltntelateetpthablepaytoworkenjoymem(l.ocke. 1976). A auveyofMichigan’squoiaeduhlcmnelhmdhlfofdnrespondunfoauedonme mmnuammwmmmmmmwmmmm. October l992).Sixty—d1reepet'cetaofmelawyerssurveyedbelievedthe “quality” of Wforqipoiaedworkwulowerornatchlowermmreumedworkm. 28). Comemngarding'feeadnhh'symwereexwpdomflycrifialnwhu.‘1haeba mumm.mm,mwmmm. . ." (p.31). However.maemmglas.bdiefs,percepuomandmeorieshsvenotbeenstudied M.pufiudfiywl¢auigmdappdhmmel.$imeramsofoompemflonamm dbpamamongMichigmcmnies(AppendixA).anddaungardmgpmcbdyhowcmmd expendmehmneareavaihble.mecomeptof‘shortuujusuce"canbequanhafivdy IMM- Litennueon‘mlemeuy'(mmr2),however,abomggesnconsidemnonof‘mn- mic'ficmrawhmmingprofecmbehavbr.ficmmnmhasme“mdepwdem name'ofcrhnhnldefetneworknnybeofsignificanceMeinz&1amnann, 1982). Political ideologieamayalsoaffectrolealeimalamnsm. 1982).Loyalty.commitment.and mmhavebemmownupredbuveofwrkbehfimmaflenberg&flug. 1987; UmolnkKallenbet-g. 1985. 1992; Price&Mueller, 1986). Asone anorney stated. “TbmeofmprncuceuhnmaldefemeaMwhohawammamicbentwndwseeourselves asthechanpionsof civil hberty, thelrnights withdrawn swords" (Chem. 1992. p. 159). Mather’s work on ‘maverick" public defenders suggests similar. non-economic. psychological 10 motivationsforrolebelnvior (1979. p. 130). Peeraemimetasa-Iall, l988landcollegiality (Wallace, immafieaorpnintiomlcomimandpossiblyjobperlormance. mmmmmm'wamumpm andm(e.g..peer)expecnuom.1heaemayoverrideecommiccomidenfiom. particularly sincecumel’smleisselfchmen—aflaflinMicbigan.Asonejudgemted.‘. . .thisCourt hasrefinedmfindMamneyswwldshirkdnirpmfeasiondobhgatiommpmvide mummmwmmmdm'w Wim-E 127)- Prioruudiuamwmmwimmcrhnmddefuueammeys' pufomnnce.prhnarflybecauemehrmofconpemauondifludnmauauy.flmmdms muty—nvmmchsufliesofiuinghcomhnive,difiermgmnu.Hem.“whendifim doemerge.pmmanunevmandseanmglyserendipm.1behmnueofienmclur operatiomlcriteriaofperfonnance’ (l989.p.403).Bycomast.dtisdissertationremmhwill mnmindvelymhrgemlesofwork-produacomhtemwithcml'semicd responsibfl’aies, 1'.e.. operationalcriteria(Appendix B). WWMdWMBWWMWW'm(i.e.,m hehavbr)baflemdbydifierh1gwmpmafimsym.Rolebdnviormybedefived&om eapectatiomofself.ofothers,andprofeasionalva1ues. Altematively.attorneysmayviear hndeqtnmwnpemadonumflecuveofmesym’sexpeuadommmehmlebehavior (1'.e.. “thisisalltlntisexpechdofmefi. [Locum OF THE STUDY Mleflgan’s Appelate Sm In November 1985. Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS) was implemented. As a small administrative agency. it was designed to improve the quality of ll represemationthatassignedcounselprovidedattheappellate level. Attorneyslicemed anywhereinMicltimmayremestplacetnetaonme'roster' ofattorneysavailable for appelhcassimmmughoumeSme.Theapplicauonpmwssehciuinfomauon mum’spiorcmnimlappenamexpuienuandmefinisdicdomhomwhhh memorneywishuwmeiveappohamema.fixperlencedcmelmehgfl>leformore connhxappab.MAACSMmdseisq1flificahom.ofienlhnhedmhfing,pmvides overseeaaregulamdauignmempmcess,muungcmeldnwghommevafiomchmnu (MichiganAppeflanAnigdeamdSysunRegtflauom.l985).1hechwiummquhedm migncmmdmmefiommaelhu.Camelcanmlydeclmeacaseforjun‘aun,” (e.g..aconflictofhaerest). Ifmexcusedforcause.cotmse1reverttomeendofthelist. MAACS mdicamadntcomhadngmiverefusah(e.g.,mree)canreathinelhnmstion fromtheroster. AlthoughMAACShandlesaelecuon,tratmngandattorneyass1gmnents appellatecounsel mW.AumymviewoprpendixA,compfledbyMMCS. flhnuateanmonlywidevafiadommmofcompmatimamongmchigancbumsmm significamdifl’etemeainmofdeuminingtemunsemem. 'Ihecharaaeristics oftheae sysmmtypeaandenfledmanpurlMichigan’scamy-basedsyaempmvideseach jmisdicdonwnhamommymmplunemiuownsymofnmmgservicesmhnigents—m enauhhandapprowwunlpaymcmmenmbmhadaafledcopyofanomeys’ ‘StatememofServim'formuAppeMix B)toMAACSatthecomletion ofeach appeal. This fombnmariacdbyeategorlaofserviceJuedmappeflammndaMsmnowmgfm comparisonsof workperformed among circuitsusing varying systems. Eighty—three percent of all indigentappellateworltinMichiganismanaged underthis MAACS coordinated system: the remaining seventeen percent is handled by the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO). 12 Mahodsofeomaingwnpemadonhchrdeflnulyfimflywimmsfeeschedme “Mummhdkhldmnauofmumnrymflkedlywhhm sym(e.g..hmulytehnhumnngh1ghom525m565).Treaunemofexpemes (e.g..travel.phone.pb0mcopying).alaodflers. futtllrcoumlicating relativeasaessmetlsof levelsofre'anbunemeu. mwamwmmmmuammmmm armehmlnveubiruflyreducedmsandexpemesmmmkmwnnmberofcasesan mm Levine. 1992). InasurveyofMlchigsn’s appoitaed cotmsel. 53.8 permanednyhavebaddteirbflktedncedbymejudgefimeflarofMichigan. 1990 p. 23).SeveralMichigancircuasdonotevenhaveanestabhshedfeesu-ucmn. relying eacltuivelyon‘judicialdiscreticn' (AppendixA).Amoredetaileddiscussionofthevarying feestrucmreaisptesetaedhtChaptet3. Michigan's 1991EconomicsoflawPracticeSurveyindicaesmeretainedtatefor crhfimlhwyenquhmn.Overhedmnngedfrom530m$45/hmu(8me8uof Michigm.l991.p.1223).1heseanmefeaandcousrepmudbypfimanormyswhoue renundbymn-mdtmdem—mosewhopumhasemehowndefenseservwes Clearly. Wrepraemmghnipuappeusm.evenmdnmpaymgcmnfia'(i.e..565mr). eamfarbelowmeStleaveragesforprivateeounsel. Thedispariieshtmemedndsamlnmsofpaysmongmevuimnmchiganchmits Wmmmmmmmmmmamm appelhnsmwprocenfighnflhissmdywfllexammehowmesevarymgsymhnpaa camb’rdemnrvmgmdigems.Paformameundercomasungsynennwfllbeamlyaed accordhgmanAACS'formwhichmategmiesofserviceMparflklMichigm's ‘MininanEthicalAppellateStandards.’ 13 immanent-um “MmhamSnmardsforImfiguICrhnhnlAppdlamDefemeServices'forMichigan amneysweteamovedbytheMichiganWCourteffecdveFebmry 1, 1982.1'hey wereoperauveudnt'lneofdatacollecunnfnrthisutdyanduesuumeffect. Theaecammadvancemahicdcomidetadom.80n1emndudsdonadirecdy mmmmmmuwmmmm ‘accurate" represemuions).1‘hefollowhu.however.aresigtuficamminvesdgaungand perfecungpmspecuveappdhmm.hddfim.dnyhawspecificapplkauonmcmmeh’ bunly‘mofservicufmppelflhmmnpmbEmmpetfomwemmg state-wideprofessionalcrlter'n. TheappllcableStandardsare: 3. ExceptinemaordhnrycirumncesmomndmauWin persononaleastoneoccasiondurhuthehtltislstagesofrepresemation. nialcamrecordwhenheormeisinformedorhasreasontobelievethufactsin supportofsuchclaimsexist. Cwmelshsflnnveforatllconductmchmmumayberequimdw createornqiplemetuarecordforreviewofanyclahnoferrornotadequately supportedbyexistingrecordswhichheorshebelievestobemeritorious. Cmmelshwldasaatchhnsofetmr(i.e..btie0whicharemppormdbyfactsof mord.whichwiflbenefitmedefendsnifmccessfin,whichpossessuguablelegfl ntefinandwhichshouldbemcogmnblebyapracuuonerfamfliarwimcfiminallaw andprocedure who engages indiligent legal research. 14 10. Counsel mould mt hesitate to assert claims (1'.e.. brief) which may be complex. m.mmammmue.nnhumoffimmprenion.chauengesmme efiecuvemssofomerdefmecmunelmrugmnentsforchsngemmeexisunghw. 12. WWMmmmWWMma argtnblymeritorimnismeswhhmnfirnobuiningmedefwdam'smformedwfiuen m 16. Cmmeldtuuldtegtestatalappearforgananrepantionforonl Wmmmumnmm.mmmmmmgs aswarraned.amltmdatehisorherlegaltesearch. l7. Cosmelshaflkeepthedefeulamappnisedofmeprogressofmecsseandshafl pronmdyfmwardmdndefendamcopiesofpleadingsfiledmhisorherbelnlfand ordersandopinionsismedbythecourtinhisorhercase. vaidhtgmeaewrvicesobviwslyretpthesmeanomeys’umemmemayvary signifieamydepadhtgmmembaofpmspecuwm.mehmnpluhy.cliuudemands. andcoumfls’skifl.Aammmysandodmsheqmmlyny.‘Tnnehmoncy.'Atmmepohn anygivenusemybecomeecommicaflymfasibkfordnauomey.merebyhnpacung expectedobhgauomandservicu.WhenMAACSroueranomeysviohueme‘Minhnm Smflards.‘&eMiddganRuhsomefeobmlCondn(MRPQamflmabrldged.1besemay include: 1.1. Competence; 1.2. Scope ofRepreaetaation; 1.3. Diligence; 1.4 Communication; and5.4(c). Professiomllndependenceof the Lawyeraevine. 1992. p. 13). Wham mwmrdamdhomngsphcedahuvyburdenontheservicepmvidem. Ascriminfldocketsmnfimemsweflfwealsuainsmueaseandmwprisomamfiuedto capacity. the cost of indigent defense has become more significant. While few dispute that the 15 feespaidmpfivateassignedcmmduflommsnyrehtcdquesuomgenemesharp W. Dodispuatebesuucuuesafieamwyperformnceormewfllingnessofhwyetsw acceptasdgncdans7Whum'ruwmbleconpemsuon”andhowshouldfeesand mkWWMfiWMMWerHHow maequesdomamamwaedmympaamequuayofrepreamuonaffommdigem. Ifauhypodnnsmacananandservhsammgsymremaheomisnemmerenum couflmggenthusnsewiceprwidusuepuformingbebwme‘snndards.'Thiswould mggeuareviewofausym.mjtnmoaewhichq1pearmb-standardmtermsof WWMmyhdppolicy-mMsdeummeif'fimce"hbeuersenedby hmlemesaing: l. Ame-hufledsymonewhichelhnhntesammydependenceonmelocal 2. Certain‘mflods'ofhmdhtg(e.g..hmulyplmexpemesvs.aflu-feeschedule) 3. Certain‘levels'ofattorneycompemation(e.g..aminhmnnhourlyrate) 4. Canypttblicdefendu'ommmmmmmeofprosewmr’soffices 5. Closelymonitored‘standasds' 6. Inmeansinafllevelsofhmdmgtomactexperiencedquafitycmmsel. MW Impmvedaervicacouldreuhmrethcedexpulliuuesformcucenfionflheyear 1974 wathelasttimemeMichiganCOImoprpealspublishedfiguresregarding “ratesofrelief' fromcr'nninalappealsJ'henyImdthat17%ol'allcasesresultedinabenefittotheappellant. whereconvicdomorsemenceswerevaumdandmeeasesrenimedtotheuialcoun.The Michigan Assigned Appellate Counsel Service (MAACS) conducted an updated study in 1993. 16 Msmedgod‘wsmidemifydnulfimmwofpoaconvicdmmiewandto deumhehowmyyearsofptiaontimewassavedasareatltf Usingarandomsampleof 292m(5.6$ oftheqpallaepowhtion).theoverallrateofreliefwas 13.8% (12.5% for guiltypleacases;16.5% forn'hls).0fallsuccessfulappeals.64.3% were plea‘based (UtmubhshedlettertoChiefJudge.MichiganCourtoprpeals. 1993). MAACSealcuhedamthcdonmprbonamijaflsememesof1220yeanfor1990based mwelhemecuomofm.0smgmmedcouofmumof$25.000peryear pahamte.MAACSnsggesmdnvingsmexceuof30nnnimdouanammaflymdheacosts ofhtcucerainAACSnoteslh'namotuais lsumesgreaterthanthetotalexpendedfor hlhgetadefaneinaflBMicltigancmniesdn‘ingmcalyear 1992-93. Mamlyshofavmgsnny.ofcmm.bemcomplec.RehechNdimmserecidiviun. badmgmhighcrdumnprhmcosuflbesymmighflwfiummenew-fmberbpaces wihdflfuemifiivimnlswhomlgmmhwbmdkplwed(i.e..prold)bewueof overaowding.Theueadonofnewmsuictercrhnhnlhws.orenhsncedenfomemem pmcednescouldalsoreutltinexpeniintresdntabateperceivedsavings. CHAPTERZ RIVIEWOI’THEIMATURE 1111mm Thischqterconahuareviewoflitmmeonmefouowingtopicsrelevammthe mawmmmmzwm;mm«y mmmmmmmmqmmmmm www.mmbunndmlifiwmmmmofpmfeum 'm'mnm;mpucammwuormmmmmmgcmmMmps,m workmhmhmatflmefiecfiveasdmnceofcamel.Tomorwghlymtdamnd mmmammaammmmmmm MW- WW Theexmeofappdlaaefigluswumdycomideredumemlevelpfiormmeflue proceumvohnion’ofmel960s.1bhprm,howeva.hmbeddedhrbukmwrfinicm binary,prhnmilymherhedfiomEngland.1heclmmhwasofprhnaryhnpommme developmeuofhwineaflyfingland.Historicddoamenmuonofhw.perse.isquhe ermnapparmgmlegalanmbmisembodiedupmofdncustomsand evetnofdteenPriortotheNormanCompestinAD.1066.canon1awwasdominam.'lhe bishops of theChurchadministeted justicethroughtheecclesiastical courts. Jurisdiction included nutters of ‘man's soul.“ encompassing crimes like adultery. fornication, incest. and 17 18 bislllly (3W9. l991.p. 19-20). Inthetwelhhcemtry.asltingsgainedpower.they formhmdandatmrcedhwsdumghmesewhtormmponlcmmmresidedoverbyme khgs'fintbes.hymnwerembjecmdmbo¢umnandseathrhwsandmejmisdkuoml dbthtcdomwueoltenumlear.Rivflrybaweencuuudevehped.paruwhdyrehmdw appeals(Su1ckey. 1991.p.20).Appealsintheecclesiasticalcourtscouldprog1essfroman uchdeacon»abishop.mu1mmuchbishop.andfinaflymmePope.mmesecuhrcm. mekmgwamefimlappdlatenuhorhy.xh1gswuedntefomjulmuofmehpe'sm:me. pudcuhdysincethePope’sdomaineandedbeyondmuomlborderuSmckey. l991.p. 19). deUnhedSnmsteconsuuniomdianpmvidefm‘accessmcmuIeI'Mcmnmal proceedmptnilmehmltherighofacceamevemuauyeandedwcrimhnl daindamlnaumbymeUSSmrennCmm’shaerpmuonofunSinhAmendmem whichprovidesmu‘inaucrhnimlproceedhgs.mescunedshaflenjoymefigm. . .tohave dumiIameofcoumdforhbdefmefBefonmeCmmappliedmeSMAmendmemmme thucomotphceforcrhnhnlcmmmsmtplydurymdigennmefigmmcwmel, merebyfommgdnsnmrdymmeprcsewungagenuofmemandmeleniencyofmcwn. Itwunmumill932muassignmgcmmelforh1digemsbeumeafederuobligauonma smaflcangwyofm.0milmen.odymmhadpmvbiomforumhappommems.and meseapplhdmcapinlcuaody.whuehwudecmhnddntmedefmdamswemimapable ofdefendingthemselvesmLADA.1969.p.2).1tisreadilyapparentthat'theabilitytodefend oneself'ishighlyntbjective.offuingfinleguanmeedprmecuonmh1digems. EvemuallymeU.S.StpraneCmnmhdmmm(l932).thaaflmwen mwmmmmmmmymupwmsammma pmmmmmmremnydcmmmmumtam efforttoextendcounseltohidigentsatthestatelevelwasblockedinl942bytheU.S. Supreme Court him. whenthejustices niledthatstateswerenOtrequiredtoprovide counsel l9 mhfllgmfordlfebnies.€mmsdwumndamdodymupiuleasesor‘whennecessarym assuresfairtrifl.’ nonmllybecauaeofdefelliam'slackofitlelligenceorliteracy. Thegtesuonofwhemera‘fah'uial’ocauredledtoanalamdanceofappeals. puuwhrlywhaecompleafacunlhmummafiteappenatemwuefomedw sinnfimmnotrenndiedfbrmdlettwalyyean.hl963.dlmwfamncaseoffim mefiflnprwfledforappohmdcmmraflhfligmacamdof feloniesatthestateaswellasthefederallevel. W‘lhinsevenlyeanfollowmgmmhmw-foundfightmcmmelwasexmndedon WMWWW)MWU95W 1’0lice WWO9GWMWMW