81ST CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE '{ REPORT No. 197 APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION OF COUNSEL FOR IMPOVERISHED DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS MARCH 29 (legislative day, MARCH 18), 1949.-Ordered to be printed Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT To accompany S. 734] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 734) to provide for the appointment and compensation of counsel for impoverished defendants in certain criminal cases in the United States district courts, having considered the same, report favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass. AMENDMENT On page 2, line 1, after the comma, following the word "marshal," delete all through and including the word "plea," line 4, page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following: $15 for service in preparing for trial or plea and compensation at a rate not to exceed $20 per day for each counsel for the number of days such counsel is actually employed in court upon the trial. The purpose of this amendment is to fix the fee for services in the amounts believed by the committee to be just and equitable. STATEMENT The purpose of the proposed legislation is to reimburse attorneys for their time and efforts in defending impoverished criminals who are defendants in cases in the United States district courts. Many criminal cases have been tried in the United States district courts wherein the defendant has not had the financial ability to procure an attorney to defend him, and the United States district judges had, in those cases, appointed attorneys to represent the defendant at his plea and at his trial. The services of the attorneys have always been gratis so that the time and labor in preparation of such cases and for the participation in the trial has placed upon them a severe hardship. In many instances, the attorneys have been required to travel distances from their offices in order properly to defend the clients that have come to them through appointment by the judges of the United States district courts. It is felt that it is not proper to require attorneys to give their services in such cases without some compensation, particularly in view of the fact that in addition to the time and labor there is most generally some expense involved. The committee therefore recommend that S. 734, as amended, be reported favorably. Attached hereto and made a part hereof are the following letters: 1. From the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, dated February 19, 1947. 2. From the Washington State Bar Association, dated April 10, 1947. 3. From the Office of the Attorney General, dated June 3, 1947. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, Washington 13, D. C., February 19, 1947. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I have your request of February 14, 1947, for a report on a bill now pending before your committee to provide for the appointment and compensation of counsel for impoverished defendants in certain criminal cases in the United States district courts (S. 510). This bill provides that whenever a defendant is charged in a district court of the United States with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor, and he requests the court to appoint counsel to assist in his defense, and satisfies the court that he is unable by reason of poverty to secure counsel himself, the court may appoint counsel not exceeding two, to be paid upon the order of the court compensation at a rate not to exceed $25 per day for each counsel for the number of days he is actually employed in court upon the trial, and at the same rate for service in preparing for trial or plea. At the present time there is no provision for the payment of counsel appointed by the Federal courts to represent poor persons accused of crime in those courts. Informed persons are generally agreed that this is a defect in the Federal judicial system and that some appropriate method of compensating counsel appointed by the Federal courts to represent indigent defendants brought before them in criminal cases should be adopted. Differences arise in regard to the best method. The Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges at its annual meeting in 1943 appointed a committee on the subject, consisting of Circuit Judge Augustus N. Hand of New York, chairman; Circuit Judge Otto Kerner of Illinois; and District Judges Guy K. Bard of Pennsylvania and Eugene Rice of Oklahoma. The committee at the following meeting of the Judicial Conference in September 1944 submitted a report, a copy of which is enclosed. Subsequently the report was circulated among the circuit and district judges of the country with a request for an expression of their views upon the proposed plan. A majority of the expres sions received from the judges were favorable, and at the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference in 1945 it approved the report and the bill recommended in principle with some minor changes. The approval was renewed by the Judicial Conference at its annual meeting in October 1946, although the conference at that meeting referred the matter back to the committee with instructions to broaden the terms of the bill to provide for the representation of poor defendants in appeals in criminal cases in the courts of appeals, and also of indigent persons applying for habeas corpus. A bill in accordance with the recommendation of the committee was introduced in the House of Representatives of the Seventy-ninth Congress as H. R. 5188 and a copy is enclosed. The bill has not been submitted in the present Congress inasmuch as the committee has not yet considered the additional aspects of the general problem referred to it by the Judicial Conference at its recent meeting. The bill about which you inquire (S. 510) adopts the method followed in some States of the appointment of counsel by the courts for poor defendants in individual criminal cases in which such representation is necessary and their compensation by fees for the time spent in such cases. The committee of the Judicial Conference considered this plan, which has its advocates among Federal judges. It was the conclusion of the committee, however, that in metropolitan districts where there are numerous poor persons accused of crime who need legal representation and are unable to pay for it such a plan would not be sufficient. There the report stated: "The situation could be met satisfactorily only by the appointment of salaried public defenders who would make of their positions a vocation, prepare systematically and thoroughly the cases assigned to them, and by frequent practice become increasingly competent in their work." The committee thought that while in some districts with small population and only an occasional need for the appointment of counsel to represent poor persons, a system of appointment at moderate compensation in particular cases might be adequate, it would not work well in districts where there would be many poor defendants needing counsel and the need for such representation would recur frequently. At the same time the committee recognized that the courts in many districts, particularly those with smaller population, prefer the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants upon an individual case basis to the appointment of a public defender, and regard the latter as unnecessary. So the committee and the Judicial Conference came to a plan under which each district court would be empowered to adopt either the individual case plan or the public defender plan in its discretion, except that in the most populous districts in which the committee considered that the individual case plan would be ineffective, the only method authorized would be to appoint a public defender. Even in those districts the appointment of a public defender would be optional with the court concerned, but there would be no other way of furnishing compensated counsel to poor defendants in those districts. More specifically, the provisions of the plan approved by the committee, and by the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, are that except in districts containing cities of more than 500,000 population, each district court in the United States may in its discretion provide either for a public defender, to be compensated by salary and reimbursed for his expenses, with such assistance as the work may necessitate, or in the alternative for the compensation and reimbursement of attorneys appointed by the court to represent poor defendants in particular cases, with a limit upon the per diem rate of compensation of $25 a day, and a maximum limit upon the aggregate amount to be expended for compensation and reimbursement in any district to $3,000 in any year. In districts having cities of 500,000 or more population, the exclusive method under the plan is the appointment of a public defender. To summarize, the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges is in agreement with the premise of the pending bill (S. 510) that some provision should be made for compensating counsel appointed by the Federal courts to represent poor persons accused of crime in those courts. It also recognizes that in some districts, mainly those less thickly settled, the appointment and payment of counsel for poor defendants in individual cases may be adequate. It is the opinion of the committee, however, and of the Judicial Conference, that in districts with larger population the appointment of public defenders with salaries proportioned to the amount of their work will meet the need more effectively and be more adequate than payment for counsel appointed by the court in particular cases, to which the pending bill is limited. Yours very respectfully, HENRY P. Chandler. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I have been instructed by the board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association to advise you that they unanimously approve Senate bill 510, providing for the appointment and compensation of counsel for impoverished defendants in certain criminal cases in the United States district courts, and that they hope you will do all in your power to assist the enactment of this bill into law. Very truly yours. S. Repts., 81-1, vol. 1-118 CLYDENE L. MORRIS, Executive Secretary. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for my views relative to a bill (S. 510) to provide for the appointment and compensation of counsel for impoverished defendants in certain cases in the United States district courts. The bill would provide that the United States district courts may appoint counsel, not to exceed two, to represent indigent defendants, each counsel to be compensated by United States marshals at a rate not exceeding $25 per day for each day in court and in preparing for trial or plea. Although I am in accord with the purpose of the proposal, I desire to submit the following considerations: It is suggested that the bill should authorize the appropriation of funds to carry out its purpose, and should also designate the agency under which its provisions would be administered. It is further suggested that the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges to study the matter of providing counsel for indigent defendants should be given consideration in drafting legisla tion of this nature. It appears that bill H. R. 514, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 1947, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, reflects a substantial portion of those recommendations. Subject to the foregoing suggestions, I find no objection to the enactment of the bill. I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, 81ST CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE AMENDING THE CANAL ZONE CODE REPORT No. 198 MARCH 31 (legislative day, MARCH 18), 1949.-Ordered to be printed Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1136) The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1136) to amend the Canal Zone Code, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of this bill is to combine and restate as substantive law, with only minor modifications, existing authorities which have heretofore been found either in annual appropriation acts or in other piecemeal substantive legislation. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL For many years the Panama Canal has been operating under the authorities requested in this bill. In a large percentage of the cases, such authorities have been contained in appropriation bills and are, therefore, subject to points of order. Since 1945, the Bureau of the Budget has been attempting to clear up much of this type of appropriation language, and this bill was prepared in accordance with a budget bulletin dated March 28, 1945. As presented it has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget and the concurrence of the Secretary of the Army. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, who is the official through whom the President exercises his supervision over the Panama Canal, in support of this legislation is made a part of this record. With one minor exception, relating to the establishment of a maximum limitation on the settlement of claims under section 17 of the |