Expert Services

Jon Mosher joins a panel discussion regarding the Maryland Court of Appeals’ recent decision in DeWolfe v. Richmond requiring the state to provide access to counsel at bail hearings and the implications of that ruling both locally and nationally.

David Carroll, in conjunction with the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts, makes a presentation on “Towards a Uniform Definition of a ‘Case.’”

David Carroll makes a presentation on the state of indigent defense services in the United States and where national advocates tend to view New Jersey in relation to other states when it comes to providing an effective lawyer with the time and training to present an effective defense. A special emphasis is placed on the need for a statewide commission to protect the independence of the defense function, as New Jersey is just one of seven statewide, state-funded public defender systems where the chief defender is a gubernatorial appointee.

David Carroll moderates a roundtable discussion on the constitutional right to counsel and the impact of Gideon v. Wainwright. Special emphasis is placed on what went right and what went wrong with indigent defense over the past 50 years and how to lay a path forward to fulfill Gideon’s promise. Panelists include: Karen Houppert (author of Chasing Gideon); Jonathan Gradess (Director of the New York State Defenders Association); Gloria Browne-Marshall (Associate Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice); and Thomas Giovanni (Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice).

David Carroll participates in a panel entitled “Gideon at 50: Providing Better Representation to Indigent Criminal Defendants.” Other participants include: The Hon. Patricia Costello, Superior Court Judge; Joseph Krakora, New Jersey State Public Defender; Alexander Shalom, American Civil Liberties of New Jersey; and Paul Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

David Carroll addresses the impact of systemic indigent defense deficiencies on wrongful convictions. Special emphasis is placed on undue political and judicial interference and the use of United States v. Cronic to get at how systemic deficiencies prevent even the best lawyers from providing constitutionally effective right to counsel services.