The Idaho Supreme Court provides guidance to lower courts evaluating claims based on deficiencies in the state public defender system

This case concerns a systemic challenge to Idaho’s public defense system and asks the Court to answer two overriding questions: (1) what is the proper legal standard to be applied to the plaintiffs’ claims at trial, and (2) what is the burden of the respective parties going forward?

The plaintiffs are indigent defendants represented in criminal actions by attorneys provided through Idaho’s public defense system. They allege that numerous inadequacies in Idaho’s public defense system, as administered by the State and the Idaho Public Defense Commission (“PDC” or together “Respondents”), violate the rights of the named plaintiffs, as well as those of similarly situated criminal defendants across Idaho, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. On March 19, 2019, the district court denied cross motions for summary judgment, citing a lack of precedent as to the controlling legal standard to be applied, and requested this appeal. On April 11, 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court granted the district court’s request for permissive appeal to determine the standard of review.

The crux of the issue comes down to how to properly evaluate the deficiencies in Idaho’s public defense systems alleged by Appellants. In sum, Appellants insist that the view from 30,000 feet is sufficient, while Respondents demand that the district court examine this issue from three feet away. For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that both views are necessary. A close up view, which allows for greater specificity, must be applied to the individual claims of at least one of the named plaintiffs whose allegations formed the basis of standing; however, a more distant view, which allows for greater overall perspective, is permissible for the examination of the systemic constitutional shortcomings alleged by Appellants.

Result

This decision only sets forth the applicable standards by which the respective sides must prove their cases—we have not dictated how they must do so. As with all lawsuits, the responsibility ultimately rests upon the skill of the attorneys involved to strategically present their  evidence in a manner they believe will most effectively persuade the trier of fact.

From the court’s summary

the Idaho Supreme Court clarified that specific instances of past or current individual harm are necessary to establish standing. However, structural evidence, such as statistics and national standards, are appropriate to establish the existence of systemic denials of counsel and may suffice to prove harm to the certified class. Similarly, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Appellants need not establish harm in each of Idaho’s 44 counties in order to prevail, concluding that county-by-county evidence is not required by the standard.

(Mike Frisch)