Briefs and Reports

The Defender Initiative has participated in reports about public defense systems and filed amicus curiae briefs in a variety of trial and appellate courts.

Briefs

Matter of Lewis

Professor Boruchowitz, with the Washington Defender Association, filed an amicus memorandum in support of the motion for reconsideration in Matter of Lewis (PDF), 523 P.3d 760 (Wash. 2023), arguing that the county that assigned as a public defender a lawyer not admitted in Washington who did not comply with the court rule on standards for public defense in effect had denied counsel to the petitioner.

Brief of Amici Curiae by the Defender Initiative and ACLU of South Carolina

The Defender Initiative, ACLU of South Carolina, and Robert C. Boruchowitz
June 30, 2012

Professor Boruchowitz worked with the ACLU of South Carolina and two lawyers in private practice to file an in an appeal from a Hilton Head Island Municipal Court trial in which the defendant did not receive a public defender despite a formal written request.

Read the ACLU of South Carolina brief on Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons:

• Brief of Amici Curiae The Defender Initiative and ACLU of South Carolina (PDF)

Amicus Brief by the Defender Initiative

Robert C. Boruchowitz and Lucie Bernheim
November 14, 2011

Working with his research assistant Lucie Bernheim, Professor Boruchowitz filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court in 2011 in a personal restraint petition case on an issue relating to sufficiency of the evidence in a prosecution for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault based on alleged impairment from smoking marijuana. The brief pointed out inconsistency in the testimony of the state's toxicologist and that there is no scientific consensus on what level of marijuana consumption impairs driving. The PRP was denied.

Read the amicus brief:

• Amicus_mjsufficiencycase (PDF)

Amicus Brief of the Defender Initiative and Washington Defender Association in Support of Motion to Appoint Counsel

The Defender Initiative, Robert C. Boruchowitz, and Counsel for Defendant
January 24, 2011

The Initiative filed this amicus brief in the Clallam County (Washington) District Court urging that a person whose income is above the statutory poverty guideline but has expenses greater than his income is entitled to a public defender. The Washington Defender Association co-signed the brief. The judge initially had ruled that the defendant was not eligible for appointed counsel. The court then appointed counsel but required that the defendant reimburse the County $350, despite the fact that he had a debt of $7000.

Read Clallam County support of motion to appoint counsel brief:

• Amicus Brief of the Defender Initiative and Washington Defender Association in Support vs. of Motion to Appoint Counsel (PDF)

Reports

The Right to Counsel in New Hampshire: Evaluation of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Representation in Adult Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Cases

The Sixth Amendment Center and The Defender Initiative
October 2022

Download:

• The Right to Counsel in New Hampshire: Evaluation of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Representation in Adult Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Cases (PDF)

Download from SixthAmendment.org:

• The Right to Counsel in New Hampshire: Evaluation of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Representation in Adult Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Cases (PDF)

The Right to Counsel in Illinois: Evaluation of Adult Criminal Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services

The Sixth Amendment Center and The Defender Initiative
June 2021

The Defender Initiative worked with The Sixth Amendment Center to prepare this report on public defense in Illinois.

Download from Digital Commons:

• The Right to Counsel in Illinois: Evaluation of Adult Criminal Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services (PDF)

Download from SixthAmendment.org:

• The Right to Counsel in Illinois: Evaluation of Adult Criminal Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services (PDF)

The Right To Counsel in Wayne County, Michigan: Evaluation of the State Defender Office of the Metropolitan Justice Center of Southeast Michigan

The Sixth Amendment Center and the Defender Initiative
April 2018

The Defender Initiative worked with the Sixth Amendment Center to prepare a report on the right to counsel in Wayne County, Michigan.

Read the Wayne County, Michigan report:

• The Right T The Right To Counsel in Wayne County, Michigan: Evaluation of the State Defender Office of the Metropolitan Justice Center of Southeast Michigan (PDF)

Download the report from SixthAmendment.org:

• The Right to Counsel in Wayne County, Michigan: Evaluation of the State Defender Office of the Metropolitan Justice Center of Southeastern Michigan (PDF)

The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services

The Sixth Amendment Center and the Defender Initiative
March 2018

The Defender Initiative worked with the Sixth Amendment Center to prepare a report on the right to counsel in Mississippi.

Read the Mississippi report:

• The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services (PDF)

Download the report from SixthAmendment.org:

• The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services (PDF)

The Right to Counsel in Utah: An Assessment of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services

The Sixth Amendment Center and The Defender Initiative
March 2018

The Defender Initiative worked with the Sixth Amendment Center to prepare a report on public defense in Utah.

Read the Utah public defense report:

• The Right to Counsel in Utah: An Assessment of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services (PDF)

Justice Shortchanged-Assigned Counsel Compensation in Wisconsin

The Sixth Amendment Center, The Defender Initiative, Robert C. Boruchowitz, and the Fred T. Korematsu Center
May 1, 2015

The Defender Initiative worked with the Sixth Amendment Center to do an analysis of the compensation for assigned counsel in Wisconsin. The report found that in paying private assigned counsel either $40 per hour or in some cases a flat fee of approximately $248 per case, Wisconsin violates the ABA Ten Principles' demand that appointed counsel be paid both a "reasonable fee" and "actual overhead expenses". The report was commissioned by the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

SU Law Professor Deirdre Bowen assisted on the project with statistical analysis and law students Nicole Beges and Phil Chinn provided research assistance.

Read the report on assigned counsel compensation in Wisconsin:

• Justice Shortchanged: Assigned Counsel Compensation in Wisconsin (PDF)

Download the report from SixthAmendment.org:

• Justice Shortchanged: Assigned Counsel Compensation in Wisconsin (PDF)

An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State

Peter A. Collins, Robert C. Boruchowitz, Matthew J. Hickman, and Mark A. Larrañaga
January 1, 2015

The purpose of this study was to estimate the costs associated with pursuit of the death penalty, as compared to cases where the death penalty was not sought, for aggravated first-degree murder cases in Washington State.

• An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State (PDF)
• Read more about the Death Penalty Report.

Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America's Broken Misdemeanor Courts

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Robert C. Boruchowitz, Malia N. Brink, and Maureen Dimino
April 2009

Professor Boruchowitz and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers collaborated on this project, which showed that the explosive growth of misdemeanor cases is placing a staggering burden on America's courts. Defenders across the country are forced to carry unethical caseloads that leave too little time for clients to be properly represented. As a result, constitutional obligations are left unmet and taxpayers' money is wasted.

• Minor Crimes, Massive Waste (PDF)

This website is funded in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).