Private investigator challenges public defender's report to Supes
Sam Williams, Lassen County Times Sept. 27, 2011
Susanville private investigator Ron Wood alleged Public Defender David Marcus' Tuesday, Aug. 16 report to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors "was a gross misrepresentation" of the contract between a Reno, Nevada private investigator and the public defender's office. He also alleged the county has not followed its own policies and procedures for executing contracts. In addition, he questioned the appropriateness of district attorney's involvement in the public defender's choice of private investigators.
"The public defender seems to have lost sight of the fact that his office's primary responsibility is to assist public clients and not facilitate the district attorney's prosecutions,"
Wood wrote in a report he made to the board. "Why should the district attorney be consulted concerning the hiring of the public defender's investigators? The truth is a less than rigorous public defense investigator benefits the district attorney but doesn't always serve the public or justice. The independence of the public defender's office begins with a formal advertised bidding process for his private investigator contract. It does not begin in the DA's office as suggested by (the) former public defender."
At Tuesday's Sept. 13 board meeting, Wood said Marcus told the board on Aug. 16 that Gina Crown, the Nevada contract, was paid $10,790 for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, but according to a "vendor expenditure inquiry" from Lassen County he presented to the board, Crown was paid $17,524.42 between July I, 2010 and June 30, 2011.
"Since June 24, 2010, to Sept. I, 2011, Gina Crown has been paid $24,000 - $24,000 that came out of the public safety fund - just so we know where that came from," Wood said. "The point I'm making today is that contract is a runaway contract. That contract should have gone out to bid when it passed $10,000 according to the county's policy on purchasing."
Wood also criticized the board for approving another $12,000 extension for that contact Aug. 16. Wood said there are other reasons to keep the public defender's private investigator contract in Lassen County. In addition to the county's policies and procedures that provide for a 5 percent preference to local companies contracting with the county, unemployment in Lassen County is 13.6 percent and this money could and should stay local. Wood also complained about the relationship between the public defender's office and the district attorney's office.
| Photo: Ronald Wood presents information to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors regarding a contract between a Reno, Nev. private investigator and the Lassen County Public Defender's Office. Photo by Sam Williams |
According to Wood, the former public defender also misrepresented the matter by suggesting there were only two private investigators in Lassen County. "There are five investigators in Lassen County," Wood said. "It was reported there were only two, and that's because the public defender had to do an emergency process to get this company out of Reno, Nevada There are five of us, so that was a misrepresentation also." Wood asked the board to rescind the contract with Crown, initiate an open bid process and then bring the local public safety dollars back to Lassen County where they belong.
Board wants DA to explain why local private investigators should not work for public defender
Sam Williams,
Lassen County Times August 23, 2011
Lassen County's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved on Tuesday, Aug. 16, a short-term contract with a Reno, Nev. private investigation firm that provides services to the Lassen County public defenders office. But as soon as possible within the next 30 days the board wants to review the standing of' all private investigators within the county in an attempt to discover why Bob Burns, the Lassen County District Attorney, reportedly has issues with the credibility of the local private investigators.
"If there are vendors who are out of sorts with the district attorney's office, we need to sort that out," said Jim Chapman, District 2 supervisor and board chair.
Lassen County Public Defender David Marcus asked the board to approve a contract with Gina Crown and Associates for investigative services through June 30, 2012. Marcus said the office used the firm last year, and paid a total of $10,790.47 to the firm. This year's contract is not expected to exceed $12,000. Marcus said the firm has reduced its investigative fee from $60 to $55 per hour and travel time costs from $60 to $30 per hour. He said either party could terminate the contract with 30 days notice. He said the firm had been working on on-going cases under limited authority from the public defender's office and from acting County Administrative Officer Rick Crabtree.
The board balked almost immediately and expressed concerns about why a local private investigator could not be found. "Do we have anybody in the local area who could do this kind of service?" District 2 Supervisor and Chair Jim Chapman asked. "There are two investigators in Susanville," Marcus said, "I discussed both of those investigators. (They) contacted me when we had a contract with Mr. Grant that he terminated on one day's notice and we were rushing around trying to find some body to cover that gap.
"I contacted Mr. Burns at the district attorney's office" and said what do you think about these folks as far as their credibility, and I didn't get a positive response." Marcus said he was concerned the public defender's office would pay for an investigation and if the district attorney's office believes that investigation "is not complete, inaccurate or that investigator has no credibility," then the public defender's office has to pay for a second investigation.
"I needed somebody who had credibility, and this is the best rate I could get at that time," Marcus said. District 5 Supervisor Jack Hanson pointed out the contract had been signed in June, and he thought it should have moved through the process more quickly. Marcus said he obtained the appropriate signatures on the contract, but it "languished in the CAO's office for a bit" and then came back to him with direction to put it on the board's agenda. By then the board was in the middle of budget issues.
Larry Wosick, district 3 supervisor, asked Marcus if he had flown the contract, and Marcus said he had not. Marcus said he had received letters from the local private investigators and he even responded to a freedom of information ' act request from one of them. It is a sensitive issue because I was contacted by one of the local people," Wosick said, "(and he's) really sour about the money going to Nevada when they could offer the same services here." "I was contacted about the same issue," Marcus said.
"So why is it?" Wosick asked. "We just don't have any, competent people?" "I'm not going to say incompetent," Marcus said. "I'm simply going to say that my conversation with Mr. Burns was that he didn't think those individuals had credibility with his office. I need some body, when I turn over investigations as part of a discovery request, that carries some weight with the district attorney's office." Iona McCain said she believed there are qualified private investigators in Lassen County. Chapman agreed. "I think the issue that Mr. Marcus brings forth is the fact that the district attorney's office apparently has some credibility issues with these or other of the investigators," Chapman said.
"Before we get too far into this, I think it would be to the board's best interest to understand what issue the district attorney has. "My preference is we try to provide these services using our local folks as the prerequisite." Chapman was concerned the board was making a decisions based on the reported feelings of the district attorney without hearing from him directly. "If he's got a valid reason, obviously we have to look at that," Chapman said, "but if he doesn't like the way he combs his hair or does whatever he does, I don't think that necessarily rises to the point where we make our decision ... Those local dollars we spend here, stay here, and that's important to our local economy.
Lassen County Public Defender’s Office
Grand Jury Report 2010 - 2011
Reason for Inquiry: Public Interest
Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed the Public Defender, members of his staff, other entities who interface with the Public Defender on a professional or supervisory basis as well as multiple unannounced visits to Public Defender's Office.
Background: The Lassen County Public Defender’s Office is charged by the State of California with providing legal defense free of charge to individuals residing in Lassen County who are charged with criminal offenses and who are not capable of paying for their own defense.
The Lassen County Public Defender's Office is staffed by Public Defender, two staff lawyers, an administrative assistant, support staff. All are full time employees of Lassen County. The Public Defender is a County department head who reports directly to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. The Lassen County Public Office handles an average of about 1,100 cases per year, 40% felony and 60% misdemeanor. This represents a significant caseload, given the meager staff at the Public Defender's Office.
Findings: The Public Defender's Office essentially has three lawyers authorized to appear in court in defense of individuals that have no other means obtaining legal representation. Through observation, unannounced visits and interviews, the two staff lawyers appear to be decisively engaged while Public Defender himself appears to only spend an estimated 30-40 percent of the day at work. It appears that the Public Defender is not actively engaged in the caseload other than for felony preliminary hearings.
Continuing Education (CE) is essential for the lawyers of the Public Defender’s Office. In fact, effective representation of their clients is not possible when legal team is not current with changing laws. Through this inquiry it was determined that the funds allocated for these mandated requirements are not equally allocated.
The Public Defender avails himself of the necessary funding for CE but his staff is required to pay out of their pocket or not attend. The heavy workload of the staff lawyers also creates scheduling conflicts between caseloads and continuing education. It appears that because of the unequal distribution of the workload and the incomplete continuing education of staff lawyers, people of Lassen County are not adequately served.
During difficult economic times, funds allocated to this department for leadership and supervision should be spent wisely to best serve the people and to ensure maximum effectiveness.The Public Defender reports directly to and is overseen by the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. Given the professional nature of the Public Defender’s Office, it is imperative that the Board of Supervisors hire an individual who understands the professional requirements and is self-motivated to meet the requirements of the office.
Recommendation: The Lassen County Board of Supervisors revise the Public Defender's job description to include the requirement of active participation in caseloads assigned to the office. The Lassen County Board of Supervisors consider alternative methods to oversee and evaluate the Public Defender's contribution to the to the effectiveness of his department. The Lassen County Board of Supervisors review the effective use of continuing education funds in the Public Defender’s Office, and ensure minimum continuing education requirements are met by all employees. The Public Defender reevaluates the office caseload to ensure that all the lawyers assigned to the office, carry an equitable portion of the workload.
Local PIs vs Public Defender
Ronald L. Wood, Lassen County Times, Letter to the Editor, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, County Board of Supervisors finally began to look for answers regarding the Public Defender and its failure to use local private investigators. One of his objections from hiring local PI’s has come from his resentment to the investigation over the lack of an open public bidding process. However, the Public Defender seemed to have lost sight of the fact that his office, primary responsibility is to assist public clients and not facilitate the District Attorney’s prosecutions.
The Public Defender’s condescending remarks directed at local private investigators are without foundation and reflect his less than independent relationship with the District Attorney. Why should the District Attorney be consulted concerning the hiring of the Public Defender’s investigators? The truth is that a less than rigorous public defense investigator benefits the District Attorney but doesn't’t always serve the public or justice.
The job of a defense investigator is to scrutinize the District Attorney’s Discovery and to find any weakness or errors in law enforcement reports, but most importantly, to uncover and provide exculpatory facts that may vindicate the accused. I know because this is what I do. I have worked for Defense Attorneys in Lassen County and throughout the State. We had prevailed over the District Attorney’s Office in many a criminal matter. The completeness of my work product has aided in the success those cases. Though the District Attorney hasn’t appreciated my defense investigations there are some in the public who were surly glad I was involved.
The independence of the Public Defender begins with an open bid process for the Defender’s private investigator contract as required by law. It does not begin in the DA’s office as suggested by former Public Defender Marcus. My public records request has helped to daylight and fuel this ongoing discussion.
First source hiring should be the standard in Lassen County. It makes good economic sense. The current Public Defenders office investigator’s contract is paid to an out of state firm who is being paid for travel time at 50 cents per mile in addition to $60 hourly wage. The rate of pay for private investigators in Lassen County has been set by the courts and not by the public defender’s office. Our local rate of pay is $45 per hour and not $60. Currently, the contract for the out of state investigative services is being paid out of the Public Safety Fund. This is same fund that provides financial support to our local law enforcement agencies etc.
It is time to set this process right. If the county seeks a private contract for more than $10,000 for a service like a road repair, then there is an open public bid process. Yet, now the supervisors want to extend this current investigators contract to the same out of state contractor for another year, and this time for $12,000 or more. This contract should be awarded in a public process and not over shadow by the prejudice of either the Public Defender or the District Attorney.
NOTE: THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LASSEN
GENERAL ORDER. 2006-01: FEES FOR COURT APPOINTED INDIGENT DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS
It is hereby ordered that effective for work performed from February 1, 2006, investigative services for indigent defense rendered pursuant to court authorization by the Superior Court of California, County of Lassen, shall be compensated at the rate of Forty-Five Dollars ($45.00) per hour. Persons accepting assignments under this fee order shall do so with the clear understanding that the court will make an independent determination of the justification and necessity for the hours spent, and may reduce a claim for hours found not to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of the assignment. Indigent defense investigators shall submit a fee claim on a form provided for that purpose by the Court of Lassen, with the attorney retaining the services attesting to the validity of the claim, and with all information requested thereon, only upon completion of the investigation, unless prior court authorization for an incremental billing is obtained by the attorney on behalf of the investigator for good cause. Dated 1/24/06 Stephen D. Bradbury, Presiding Judge
|
The investigation of the Public Defender has also day lighted his very chummy relationship with the District Attorney which may have further compromised some clients legal defense. It appears that the Office of the Public Defender often sought out the DA for his prior approval of the defense findings.