The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday upheld a district court’s order to release jailed indigent Oregon defendants if they do not receive legal counsel within seven days.
Oregon has been facing a shortage of qualified criminal defense attorneys. This has led to Oregon indigent defendants being jailed for months without ever reaching trial. Jailed indigent Oregon defendants sued Oregon in federal district court alleging violations of the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution because of not being provided legal counsel. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants for the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims. It ordered that “counsel must be provided within seven days of the initial appearance, or within seven days of the withdrawal or previously appointed counsel. Failing this, defendants must be released from custody, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by Circuit Court judges.”
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order for “abuse of discretion,” which it said is committed when a court “makes an error of law.” The first issue addressed is whether the federal courts should intervene in state court criminal proceedings. The appeals court agreed with the district court that “extraordinary circumstances” causing “necessary irreparable injuries” from state court criminal proceedings require the federal courts to intervene. The appeals court found that “those who are incarcerated, awaiting trial, and without counsel” are in an “extraordinary circumstance that requires federal action.” Furthermore, deprivations of physical liberty like pretrial detentions are “necessary irreparable injuries.”
The appeals court next addressed the issue of whether the law provides that the plaintiffs could be granted their order. The appeals court stated that a plaintiff “must establish (1) ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits,’ (2) ‘that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,’ (3) ‘that the balance of equities tips in his favor,’ and (4) ‘that an injunction is in the public interest.””
The appeals court agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because “(a) the lack of counsel prevented them from preparing for or progressing to critical stages and (b) bail hearings, to which Oregon custodial defendants are entitled within a certain time frame, are critical stages.” The appeals court elaborated that the attorney must be appointed “within a reasonable time” from the start of the judicial proceedings. The appeals court also found that bail hearings are “critical stages” because defense attorneys can effectively build persuasive arguments at that stage.
The appeals court agreed with the district court that its order does not pose a great “fiscal or administrative burden on the government” because providing counsel will “make criminal proceedings less burdensome on all involved'” without much cost. It also agreed with the district court that its order is for the public interest because “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”
Consequently, the appeals court did not find the district court abused its discretion and affirmed its order.
