Quitman County v. Barbour, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-SA-02658-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-SA-02658-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-21-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Provision of legal service for indigent criminal defendants - Legal standard - Financial injury - Evidentiary rulings - M.R.E. 704 - Personal opinion Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2003 Appealed from: Quitman County Circuit Court Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: The circuit court found no constitutional violation and entered judgment for the defendants. Case Number: 99-0126 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Quitman County Mississippi |
J. CHRISTOPHER KLOTZ, WILLIAM H. VOTH, KATHLEEN A. BEHAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, in His Official Capacity as Governor and Jim Hood, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY BERRYHILL, HAROLD EDWARD PIZZETTA |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Provision of legal service for indigent criminal defendants - Legal standard - Financial injury - Evidentiary rulings - M.R.E. 704 - Personal opinion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Quitman County filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Mississippi, Governor Haley Barbour, and Attorney General Jim Hood. The County alleged that Mississippi’s statutes requiring the counties to provide legal services for indigent criminal defendants are unconstitutional and sought an injunction to compel the Legislature to create a statewide, state-funded public defenders’ office. After the Circuit Court of Quitman County denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. The Court held that the County had standing to bring this action and had pleaded facts which, if assumed to be true, were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court affirmed and remanded. Following a trial on remand, the circuit court found no constitutional violation and entered |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Legal standard The County argues that the circuit judge applied the wrong legal standard to the its claims for relief. The County argues that instead of using the standard that this Court and the United States Supreme Court held governs this case, the circuit judge applied a higher, two part test used only for post conviction challenges by individual criminal defendants. The County maintains that the circuit judge mistakenly proceeded as if the case were an individual post-conviction proceeding, in which the County would have had to prove on a case-by-case basis that the attorney’s performance was deficient and the defendant was prejudiced. The County did not present any evidence on any one of the central factual allegations in its complaint, and the County did not try to show specific examples of when the public defenders’ legal representation fell below the objective standard of professional reasonableness. The record does not offer any evidence that the court or the State thought that the County was seeking to overturn particular convictions. The County argues that courts must look to whether the system provides the essential tools of an effective defense across the broad run of cases, and that the performance of a particular lawyer or the result in any one case is not decisive. The County maintains that it did show that the essential tools of defense were not provided and that if the circuit judge had assessed the tools of an adequate defense in light of this Court’s prior decisions and standards, it would have been clear that the county-based system in Quitman and counties does not provide the essential tools of defense and therefore violates the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. The circuit judge’s opinion discussed in depth the claims raised by the County regarding the lack of essential tools of defense and concluded that the delays cannot be attributable to the public defender program. The County also contends that due to the chronic underfunding of indigent defense, the result was ineffective assistance of counsel which in turn, adversely affected the administration of justice in Mississippi. However, none of the public defenders for this judicial district, circuit judges, or district attorneys testified to this effect. Further, none of the three witnesses tendered by the County as experts concluded in their testimony that either of the public defenders in Quitman County was incompetent. Therefore, th circuit judge did not apply the wrong legal standard to the County’s claims for relief. Issue 2: Financial injury The County argues that the circuit judge misconstrued the applicable legal standard with respect to financial matters. According to the County’s interpretation of the previous decision regarding Quitman County, the County had to “show the cost of an effective system of indigent criminal defense” and “the County’s inability to fund such a system.” The circuit judge found insufficient evidence that the County’s public defenders are providing ineffective assistance on a regular basis, and the judge also determined that the County could afford to spend more if it chose to and the spending on indigent defense was not the cause of the deficit. The circuit judge’s findings are not askew from the applicable standard with which the Court reviews this issue. Issue 3: Evidentiary rulings The County argues that the circuit judge committed prejudicial error in two evidentiary rulings, which in turn, affected a substantial right of Quitman County. The first purported error occurred when the circuit judge barred the County from introducing expert testimony that the indigent defense system has affected the independence and effectiveness of the courts, and the second purported error occurred when the judge allowed local circuit judges to offer their opinions on the competence of the public defenders. The circuit judge allowed expert opinion on specific fact-based matters but was less inclined to hear sweeping, unsupported opinions. The Comment to M.R.E. 704 solidifies the judge’s purpose in asking the parties to stay away from opinions on the ultimate issue. The Comment to Rule 704 states that even though “ultimate issue” opinions may be admissible, a question may not be asked which is based on inadequately explored legal criteria since the answer would not be helpful. With regard to testimony by local circuit judges, the personal knowledge of the judges regarding what they observe the lawyers doing in their courtroom was the reason that they were called as witnesses. The circuit judge did not abuse her discretion by relying on the judges’ testimony to help her determine whether the public defenders’ caseload was excessive, whether indigent defendants were entering into illadvised plea agreements, and whether the public defenders take their obligations as such seriously. Furthermore, the circuit judge did not treat their testimony as expert opinion testimony on the issue of whether the public defenders were providing constitutionally adequate representation, so the admission thereof was not erroneous. The County also incorrectly accuses the circuit judge of ignoring that evidence simply because she refused to draw inferences favorable to the County or because she found the County’s evidence less probative than that submitted by the State. The County’s argument fails to consider the evidence within the record that was unfavorable to its position. Issue 4: Personal opinion The County argues that the circuit judge violated Canon 3A of the Code of Judicial Conduct by injecting a note of personal opinion into a decision of statewide significance and constitutional import, and contrary to the expressed view of the majority of the Quitman Court. This argument is without merit because the circuit judge found that County did not meet its burden at trial, then it is not entitled to the possible relief that was enumerated by the majority of the Court in Quitman. Although her ideas regarding the proper way to gain the relief sought if the burden had been met were contrary to the majority’s opinion, she was in no way violating her duty to remain faithful to the law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
