With sequestration and budget cuts, Federal Defender Offices nationwide are being told they need to cut their 2014 fiscal year budgets by 14%, on top of the 9% cuts this year. That means a budget for the FY 2014 starting October 1 will be 23% less than the FY 2012 budget. Even with some voluntary retirements, the EDCA Federal Defender will require all staff to use 9.5 unpaid furlough days in the upcoming year and has already started layoffs this month--with more coming. If sequestration continues through the end of the FY 2014, FD offices may need to layoff up to 1/3 to 1/2 of their staffs. If the budget is reduced the full proposed 23% so as not to defer any CJA panel payments, Heather Williams estimates she will have to layoff 40-45 of her staff by the end of FY 2014, about half the office.
As The Huffington Post describes here in "Sequestration's Biggest Victim: The Public Defender System," slashing the Federal Defender System is not about saving money, reducing the budget deficit, or improving representation of indigent defendants. See also "Sequestration Threatens to Eviscerate Federal Public Defenders," EDVA FD Michael Nachmanoff, 7/23/13, The Hill. The number and complexity of federal criminal cases are increasing, not falling, and defendants without the money to hire a federal criminal defense attorney (meaning most defendants) are entitled to a court-appointed attorney under the Sixth Amendment.
With the Federal Defender taking less cases, costs go up. Based on a survey of FD v. CJA panel costs over the last three years, the EDCA Federal Defender Office has been 11% cheaper on a case-by-case basis than local CJA panel attorneys. If the cuts continue, CJA expenses in our district alone may cost taxpayers an additional $1 million annually. For more details, see Federal Defender Fact Sheet.
And more importantly (in my book), the quality of representation will likely suffer. Federal Defender Offices are staffed by experienced attorneys and staff who handle only federal criminal cases. As a former Assistant Federal Defender, I know the benefits of practicing full-time federal defense in an office with other experienced, dedicated attorneys and staff. A study by a Harvard economist found that salaried public defenders generally get better results at less cost than court-appointed attorneys. See NY Times, 7/13/07. Those that remain at FD offices will have to get by with less training and resources.
The biggest loser. Our Constitution. Our rights are not self-enforcing. Only through vigorous representation does the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and other Amendments mean anything. With increased costs and no tangible benefits, what's the point here? Am I missing something?
[updated 7/23, 7:15 pm]