Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences Justice System Journal Pub Date : 2020-02-22 DOI:10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842
Brian J. Ostrom, J. Bowman
{"title":"Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice","authors":"Brian J. Ostrom, J. Bowman","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by public defenders of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. The umbrella of what we call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) evaluated the implementation of holistic defense practices at three public defender offices: the Department of Public Advocacy in Bowling Green, Kentucky; the Hennepin County Public Defender in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Rhode Island Public Defender in Providence County, Rhode Island. In all offices, on-site interviews and surveys were conducted with attorneys, judges, social workers, investigators, and others with knowledge of practices at the site. Results from the evaluation clarify (1) how indigent defense providers have implemented the principles of holistic defense in practice, (2) how holistic defense practices vary among providers, and (3) what factors have facilitated or impeded implementation of holistic defense practices. A team-based approach to representation was most prevalent at Hennepin County and Rhode Island, where social workers, investigators, and attorneys worked closely together and perceived themselves to be part of a “defense team,” while local constraints reduced the level of teamwork at Bowling Green. The findings make clear that each site approaches the practice of holistic defense differently, largely driven by local priorities and funding realities.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by public defenders of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. The umbrella of what we call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) evaluated the implementation of holistic defense practices at three public defender offices: the Department of Public Advocacy in Bowling Green, Kentucky; the Hennepin County Public Defender in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Rhode Island Public Defender in Providence County, Rhode Island. In all offices, on-site interviews and surveys were conducted with attorneys, judges, social workers, investigators, and others with knowledge of practices at the site. Results from the evaluation clarify (1) how indigent defense providers have implemented the principles of holistic defense in practice, (2) how holistic defense practices vary among providers, and (3) what factors have facilitated or impeded implementation of holistic defense practices. A team-based approach to representation was most prevalent at Hennepin County and Rhode Island, where social workers, investigators, and attorneys worked closely together and perceived themselves to be part of a “defense team,” while local constraints reduced the level of teamwork at Bowling Green. The findings make clear that each site approaches the practice of holistic defense differently, largely driven by local priorities and funding realities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考察贫困防御团队服务的有效性:整体防御实践中的多站点评价
在过去的50年里,公设辩护人通过强有力的法律倡导,对“提供有效的律师协助”的含义进行了不断的阐释。最近,许多从业人员认为,除了辩护律师,专业支持服务,如社会工作者,律师助理和刑事调查人员,是关键的有效援助律师在贫困辩护案件。我们称之为整体防御模型的保护伞涵盖了综合防御团队最先进的概念和实践。国家法院中心(NCSC)评估了三个公共辩护办公室的整体辩护实践实施情况:肯塔基州鲍灵格林的公共辩护部;明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯的亨内平县公设辩护人;以及罗德岛普罗维登斯县的罗德岛公设辩护人。在所有办公室,与律师、法官、社会工作者、调查员和其他了解现场实践的人员进行了现场访谈和调查。评估结果阐明了(1)贫困医疗服务提供者如何在实践中实施整体防御原则,(2)不同医疗服务提供者之间整体防御实践的差异,以及(3)促进或阻碍整体防御实践实施的因素。以团队为基础的代理方式在亨内平县和罗德岛州最为普遍,那里的社会工作者、调查人员和律师紧密合作,认为自己是“辩护团队”的一部分,而在鲍灵格林,当地的限制降低了团队合作的水平。调查结果清楚地表明,每个地点采用不同的整体防御方法,主要受当地优先事项和资金现实的驱动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
期刊最新文献
State Supreme Court Responsiveness to Court Curbing: Examining the Use of Judicial Review The Effects of Jurors’ Initial Views of Jury Service on Predeliberation Preferences for Prosecution or Defense Emerging Hardball Confirmation Tactics and Public Support for the U.S. Supreme Court A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard Letter from the Editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1