Judge denies caseload relief for public defenders

Jackson County’s presiding judge has denied caseload relief for two public defenders and to their office as a whole in a June 27 ruling.

Judge David M. Byrn ruled that neither David Wiegert nor Walter Stokely have caseload problems and are unable to provide effective assistance of counsel.

The Jackson County Public Defender’s Office, also referred to as the Area 16 Office, specifically sought relief for the two, but also presented their concerns about caseloads for the office as a whole. They say they are unable to accept new cases and provide effective assistance of counsel.

Under a 2013 state law, district defenders are required to file a motion for a conference with a circuit court’s presiding judge to discuss caseload issues involving individual defenders, not an office as a whole. If a judge rules that relief is necessary, he or she has the authority to grant relief such as a waitlist or appointing private attorneys.

District Defender Ruth Petsch had previously attempted multiple times to hold a conference since late 2017. The efforts were rebuffed by former Presiding Judge John Torrence, who instead blamed the caseloads on the office’s own policies. He eventually accepted a conference, but denied Petsch’s request that it be held on the record.

She appealed, and in June 2018, the Western District Court of Appeals reversed Torrence’s decision, saying that an on-the-record conference was necessary to create a record for potential appeal.

Byrn heard several hours of testimony at a long-anticipated conference held May 30. Petsch, Wiegert and Stokely testified, as well as former defenders and Stephen Hanlon, who testified about The Missouri Project, a defender workload study conducted by RubinBrown.

In his ruling, Byrn pointed to statewide public defender caseload data from the 2018 fiscal year. He said the data shows that Jackson County public defenders had half the number of cases compared to their peers statewide.

Additionally, he said the St. Louis County office, which has nearly half the trial attorneys as Jackson County, was assigned and disposed of a larger number of cases annually.

As such, he said it is not reasonable to conclude that Wiegert and Stokely have caseload problems.

Byrn was also critical of a so-called postponement list the Jackson County office has implemented on its own in response to their concerns that they were being assigned more cases than they could ethically handle.

Byrn also said the list is “for all practical purposes, the same as a ‘wait list,’” which state law specifically prohibits without prior court approval.

“Therefore, the District Defender and some of the attorneys in her office have, regrettably, acted contrary to statutory authority, without prior court approval or authorization and in some cases, directly contrary to specific Orders of the Court,” he said.

Byrn said public defenders – and all licensed attorneys – are bound by state law and court orders.

“The deliberate and flagrant failure to do so (especially when there are legal avenues and actions that can/should be followed) is and should be a cause of grave concern to all,” he said. “The rule of law has long been a bedrock of society and results in order and stability. The failure to follow and honor the rule of law, especially by those within the system, can only lead to disarray, chaos and disorder.”

John C. Aisenbrey of Stinson represented the public defenders. He could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.

The case is In re: Area 16 Public Defender Office III, 1716-MC14505.