Courtroom foes in state budget fight

It’s no secret that prosecutors and defense attorneys have their differences. Arguing with each other is what they do, after all.

But the state’s sour fiscal situation and the promised deep cuts to the state budget is making that chasm even wider, with the two groups of lawyers fighting for funds in the state Legislature.

The elevated split was apparent during a presentation made Tuesday by several elected district attorneys. The DAs told lawmakers that funding for themselves and court staff should be preserved, but that cuts should fall more on the N.C. Indigent Defense Services, the state agency that manages and provides constitutionally-required representation for poor criminal defendants.

When looking for cuts, “look here,” said Ben Davis, the elected district attorney of New Hanover and Pender counties, referring to IDS’ $132 million budget.

As Davis spoke, he was pointing to a projected slide that showed that the 44 district attorney offices in the state get $92 million in funding, while IDS gets $132 million. (The slide is the 10th in the presentation and can be seen here. A warning though, the slideshow included some autopsy photos and details of a homicide that some may find disturbing)

Later on in the presentation, Phil Berger Jr., the elected district attorney for Rockingham County, said defense attorneys were flush with resources in comparison with state prosecutors.

“We’re outspent and outgunned every day in the courtroom,” Berger said. (That’s not a typo, Berger is the son of a better-known Phil Berger on Jones Street, the GOP leader of the state Senate.)

The attack from DAs on indigent services is much more aggressive this year than it’s been in the past, said Thomas Maher, the head of N.C. Indigent Defense Services.

“It’s a new and disturbing era,” he said.

The financial assessment made by the prosecutors, that show that IDS gets more money for less work, is incorrect and oversimplifies the situation, he said.

IDS, which was created in 2000 in order to streamline how the state pays and maintain the quality of appointed defense attorneys, doesn’t just provide lawyers to all criminal defendants who can’t afford lawyers in the state, Maher said. It also provides lawyers to represent parents in abuse and neglect cases, as well as in cases where the N.C. Department of Social Services is trying to terminate parental rights. Those are cases that district attorneys have little to no involvement in, Maher said.

IDS’ budget also accounts for the cost of lawyers in appeals of convicted defendants in criminal cases, a costly and often lengthy legal process that’s a necessary check-and-balance in the legal process to prevent wrongful or unjust convictions. For prosecutors, that caseload and cost is picked up by the N.C. Attorney General’s Office, Maher said.

A big part of IDS budget goes to pay for appointed, effective counsel in criminal cases, a constitutional requirement that the state has to meet, Maher said. That’s not an area that can be cut with a steady number of people being charged with crimes. Maher expects that he’ll have to cut back the $75-per-hour payment that defense attorneys currently get for representing accused clients that can’t afford lawyers on their own. The state rate is lower than what most criminal defense attorneys get if hired privately, especially in the state’s urban areas.

“It’s very tight,” Maher said. “We’re going to run out of money to pay to pay assigned counsel in mid-May.”


  1. Carolina

    March 31, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    http://carolinacrimreport.com – please read the home page.
    someone needs to address the court’s recordkeeping issues.

  2. Mary

    April 1, 2011 at 8:38 am

    It also should be noted that the prosecutors have free and unlimited access to all the investigative and expert resources that they need through law enforcement, SBI lab, Dorothea Dix hospital forensic unit, etc. That expense does not come out of the district attorneys’ $92 million dollar budget. If an indigent defendant needs an investigator or expert witness, the expense for that does come out of the IDS budget. For the prosecutors to claim that they are outspent is disingenous.

  3. George Whitaker

    April 1, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Laws passed and continuously made more onerous by the General Assembly are enforced by the police and prosecuted by the District Attorneys and their staffs. The Supreme Court of the United States, interpretating the federal constitution, requires that persons accused of crimes by the government be afforded effective assistance of counsel to defend against the govenment’s charges. When effective counsel is not provided at the trial level, cases are often overturned on appeal and new trials ordered, thus substantially increasing the cost of administering justice. The General Assembly is constitutionally required to bear the expense of indigent representation, but it must be noted that those found guilty of crimes are ordered to repay the costs of court appointed attorneys, though many simply are unable and have civil judgments entered against them. Footing the bill for indigent defense is not just a good idea, it is constitutionally mandated.

Check Also

UNC Board of Governors face protest, chooses new board chair and interim president

It was a busy day at the final ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

When it began in 1919, it was “Armistice Day” — a celebration of the end of World War I. It became a [...]

Peter Romary worked for UNC board member Tom Fetzer, but claimed connections to Senate leader Phil B [...]

GREENSBORO – A Pender County graduate almost missed an opportunity to pursue his dream job because h [...]

Lawmakers criticize probe as "threat to academic freedom" U.S. Rep. Andy Levin (D-Michigan [...]

Back in the early 1990’s, the late and sorely missed Bob Hensley – a talented, feisty and frequently [...]

The post Berger on shaky ground appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

Today marks 100 days since I filed an official request with the Department of Public Instruction to [...]

Yesterday, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether immigrants detained unlawfully under [...]