|
|
Home :
Rights of the Poor
:
Indigent Defense
Michigan Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People's Right to an Attorney (1/11/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
ACLU of Michigan Seeks Order Compelling District Judge to
Comply
DETROIT - In a move reserved for extraordinary
cases, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a class action
lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Appeals to force a state judge to comply with a
recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting poor people the right to attorneys on
appeal.
"Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost
unheard of in the judicial system," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive
Director. "And, in this case, the judge seems to believe he is above the
law, or at least above the Supreme Court."
Last
June in a landmark decision, Halbert v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a 1999 Michigan law that barred judges from appointing attorneys to help
poor people who have pled guilty to appeal their sentences. The Court
specifically ruled that forcing poor people to navigate the appeals process
without a lawyer violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Constitution.
Despite the Halbert ruling, Kent County Circuit Court
Judge Dennis C. Kolenda has denied appellate counsel to several poor people and
stated that he has no obligation or intention of following the Supreme Court's
ruling in the future and characterized the ruling as "incorrect" and
"illogical."
In the lawsuit filed in the Court of Appeals
today - called a "Complaint for Superintending Control" - the ACLU asserted that
the Supreme Court took pains to address, and reject, the argument that a poor
criminal defendant could waive the right to appointed counsel on appeal.
The lawsuit also points out that both the Michigan Supreme Court and the
Michigan Court of Appeals have repeatedly held over the last half-century that
statements by the highest court, meant to be a guide to future proceedings, is
binding precedent. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court has issued a
series of orders for implementing and following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Halbert, but Judge Kolenda has also chosen to defy the Michigan
Supreme Court.
"The tragedy of this case is that while Judge
Kolenda is defying the Supreme Court, dozens of individuals are being denied
their constitutional right to counsel simply because they are poor," said ACLU
Cooperating Attorney David Moran, who argued Halbert for the ACLU. "As a
result, sentencing errors are left uncorrected and the Michigan taxpayers are
picking up the bill for inmates wrongfully serving time."
It is
unclear exactly how many people are affected by Judge Kolenda's refusal to
appoint counsel. The ACLU believes that the only mechanism to protect both
its clients and other individuals in the same situation is to ask the Court of
Appeals to exercise superintending control over Judge Kolenda and order him to
follow the Supreme Court.
In addition to Moran, ACLU cooperating
attorneys Terence Flanagan, Mark Granzotto and James Czarnecki are litigating
the case, along with Michigan ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg and
Executive Director Kary Moss.
To read the Complaint for
Superintending Control filed today in Brown v. Kolenda, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendacomplaint.pdf
To
read the Brief in Support of the Complaint, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendabrief.pdf
|
|
|
