B-156932, JUN. 15, 1966, 45 COMP. GEN. 785
Highlights
NOR IS THE FEDERALLY SUPPORTED LEGAL AID PROGRAM ESTABLISHED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ACT. THE FIRST QUESTION IS STATED TO ARISE BY VIRTUE OF THE ADOPTION BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF ITS COMMITTEE TO IMPLEMENT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964: THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. IS A VOUCHER FOR COMPENSATION OF SUCH ATTORNEY PROPERLY PAYABLE BY THIS OFFICE FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THAT ACT? YOU HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED THIS VOUCHER TOGETHER WITH AN OPINION BY JUDGE GREENE IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. SETTING FORTH HIS REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 IS APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND YOU PRESENT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC QUESTION: IS THERE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO COUNSEL APPOINTED BY JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
B-156932, JUN. 15, 1966, 45 COMP. GEN. 785
COURTS - CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 - PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AS DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE U.S.C. OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE CAN BE AT THE OPTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROCEEDED AGAINST IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, BOTH COURTS HAVING CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIMINAL CASES WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE HEARD IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, EXCEPT VIOLATIONS OF POLICE OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A), PROVIDING FOR REPRESENTATION AT ALL STAGES OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH COMMISSION OF FEDERAL CRIMES, MAY BE APPLIED TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, AND THE EXPENSES OF COUNSEL AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES PAID FROM FUND APPROPRIATED TO THE JUDICIARY, EVEN THOUGH TRADITIONALLY THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED A PART OF THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE ACT BEING DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS NOT TO COURTS NOR LAWYERS, A DEFENDANT'S ENTITLEMENT TO REPRESENTATION SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON THE CHOICE OF COURT, NOR IS THE FEDERALLY SUPPORTED LEGAL AID PROGRAM ESTABLISHED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ACT.
TO THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, JUNE 15, 1966:
BY LETTER OF APRIL 7, 1966, YOU REQUESTED OUR DECISION ON TWO QUESTIONS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION IS STATED TO ARISE BY VIRTUE OF THE ADOPTION BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF ITS COMMITTEE TO IMPLEMENT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964:
THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, SITTING AS A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE IN FEDERAL CASES, MAY APPOINT AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT A DEFENDANT IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN A CASE WHICH MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE TRIED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CIA. THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN OF THE OPPOSITE VIEW. HOWEVER, AT THE REQUEST OF CHIEF JUDGE BAZELON, THE COMMITTEE HAS AUTHORIZED THE DIRECTOR OF THE AO TO SUBMIT A PROPER VOUCHER AS A TEST CASE TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, WITH ALL AVAILABLE MATERIAL.
PURSUANT TO THIS REPORT YOU ENCLOSED COPIES OF A VOUCHER SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LEONARD P. WALSH APPROVING A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION OF AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS JUDGE THOMAS C. SCALLEY IN HIS CAPACITY AS A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ASKS WHETHER:
PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A) MAY A JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, SITTING AS A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, APPOINT AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT A DEFENDANT IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN A CASE WHICH MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE TRIED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, AND IS A VOUCHER FOR COMPENSATION OF SUCH ATTORNEY PROPERLY PAYABLE BY THIS OFFICE FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THAT ACT?
A RELATED BUT BROADER QUESTION ARISES OUT OF PRESENTATION BY JUDGE HAROLD H. GREENE OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF A VOUCHER APPROVING PAYMENT TO AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY HIM TO REPRESENT A DEFENDANT IN A MISDEMEANOR TRIAL IN HIS COURT. YOU HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED THIS VOUCHER TOGETHER WITH AN OPINION BY JUDGE GREENE IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. FRANK WALKER, JR., CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 363-66, SETTING FORTH HIS REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 IS APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND YOU PRESENT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC QUESTION:
IS THERE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO COUNSEL APPOINTED BY JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, AND TO PAY FOR OTHER RELATED SERVICES PERFORMED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS WHOM THEY REPRESENT IN THAT COURT, FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE JUDICIARY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964?
YOU POINT OUT THAT UPON RECEIPT OF JUDGE GREENE'S OPINION YOU HAD YOUR STAFF REVIEW THE MATTER. TWO MEMORANDA, ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER, ADDRESSED TO THE BROADER QUESTION RAISED IN JUDGE GREENE'S OPINION REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT NEITHER IN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964, NOR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, NOR IN THE PERTINENT REPORTS OF THE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEES OF THE CONGRESS IS THERE ANY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE DRAWN TO THIS CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE TEXT AND HISTORY OF THE ACT AND, FURTHER, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT BOTH PRIOR TO AND AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964, THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS WAS SERVED BY THE LEGAL AID AGENCY, A FEDERALLY SUPPORTED PROGRAM FOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, JUDGE GREENE'S OPINION, AND THE MEMORANDA OF LAW WHICH YOU FURNISHED. ALSO, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE VIEWS OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS EXPRESSED HIS CONCURRENCE IN JUDGE GREENE'S DECISION.
THE ACT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION AT ALL STAGES FOR PERSONS CHARGED WITH THE COMMISSION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. IN MAKING SUCH PROVISION, THE ACT WAS FRAMED IN TERMS OF THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM OF WHICH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS HAS TRADITIONALLY NOT BEEN CONSIDERED A PART. BUT, WHILE THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN CONSIDERED AS BEING OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM AS SUCH, IT IS SIGNIFICANT WITH RESPECT TO THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER ALL CRIMINAL CASES WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE HEARD IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. D.C. CODE SEC. 11-521 (A) (2), 11-963 (A). AND ALL CRIMINAL CASES HEARD IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF POLICE OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS ARE PROSECUTED BY A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES. D.C. CODE SEC. 23-101. PROSECUTIONS BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES ARE CONDUCTED IN THE "UNITED STATES BRANCH" OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, AND THE RIGHTS IT CONFERS, ARE DIRECTED NOT TO COURTS NOR TO LAWYERS, BUT TO DEFENDANTS. THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE PLAN FOR EVERY FEDERAL DISTRICT PROVIDE REPRESENTATION THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT, IN THE FORM OF COUNSEL AND SERVICES OTHER THAN COUNSEL, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO ALL DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS, OTHER THAN PETTY OFFENSES, WHO ARE FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE. IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS, EITHER UNDER THE UNITED STATES CODE OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, CAN AT THE OPTION OF THE UNITED STATES BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN EITHER OF THE TWO COURTS. IN FELONY CASES, THEIR INITIAL APPEARANCES MAY TAKE PLACE EITHER BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER, OR BEFORE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER. IN MISDEMEANOR CASES, THEY MAY BE TRIED EITHER BY A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, OR BY A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF A DISTRICT JUDGE. CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF "OFFENSES COMMITTED IN THE DISTRICT FOR WHICH THE PUNISHMENT IS BY FINE ONLY OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS" IS VESTED IN BOTH OF THESE COURTS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, MOST MISDEMEANOR CASES BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES ARE PROSECUTED IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. THESE INCLUDE MISDEMEANORS UNDER BOTH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE AND THE UNITED STATES CODE. THIS MEANS THAT SOME DEFENDANTS ARE PROSECUTED IN GENERAL SESSION FOR OFFENSES UNDER THE U.S.C. WHICH IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. IN ADDITION, UNDER CURRENT PRACTICE A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR UNDER EITHER THE UNITED STATES CODE OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE WILL BE TRIED AND SENTENCED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IF THE MISDEMEANOR IS PROSECUTED ALONG WITH A FELONY CHARGE. IN SHORT, FACTORS OVER WHICH A DEFENDANT HAS NO CONTROL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS TRIED OR SENTENCED FOR A MISDEMEANOR IN GENERAL SESSIONS OR IN DISTRICT COURT.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED A DEFENDANT'S ENTITLEMENT UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT TO BE DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CHOOSE TO PROSECUTE HIM IN ONE COURT RATHER THAN ANOTHER. MOREOVER, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ULTIMATE APPEAL OF CASES BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS LIES WITH THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHERE THE ACT PLAINLY APPLIES, SUCH A DISTINCTION WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION "* * * AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM * * * INITIAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR COURT THROUGH APPEAL.'
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IS SILENT ON THE QUESTION BEFORE US; IT REVEALS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE SOME MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SOME FELONY HEARINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM ITS COVERAGE. NOR DOES THE ACT OR ITS HISTORY SUGGEST ANY BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BETWEEN FEDERAL AND LOCAL OFFENSES. THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE GENERAL SESSIONS COURT BOTH HANDLE BOTH KINDS OF CASES. FACT, MANY CRIMINAL CASES PROSECUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT INVOLVE PURELY LOCAL OFFENSES. THESE CASES ARE PLAINLY COVERED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT. BECAUSE OF ITS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT IS PRESENTLY EMPOWERED TO TRY ALL OF THE CASES INVOLVING LOCAL OFFENSES WHICH ARE NOW PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF GENERAL SESSIONS. THIS WERE DONE, ALL DEFENDANTS NOW PROSECUTED IN THAT PART OF GENERAL SESSIONS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY COME WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT. THIS MAY IN FACT BE THE ONLY REMAINING ALTERNATIVE IF JUDGE GREENE'S SUGGESTION IS CORRECT THAT THE DENIAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT BENEFITS TO DEFENDANTS IN HIS COURT MAY INVALIDATE THEIR CONVICTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.
BECAUSE OF THE ANOMOLOUS SITUATIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE, JUDGE GREENE CONCLUDES THAT THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AND THAT IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT CAN REASONABLY BE VIEWED AS ENCOMPASSING THE UNITED STATES BRANCH IT SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE RAISED. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION THE RECENT DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IN TATE V. UNITED STATES, NO. 19177 (D.C. CIR. MARCH 28, 1966) HOLDING THAT FINANCIALLY DISABLED DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED BY THE UNITED STATES ARE EQUALLY ENTITLED TO TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL IN CASES ARISING FROM GENERAL SESSIONS OR DISTRICT COURT.
YOUR OFFICE HAS PRESENTED TWO BROAD ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS TO BE COVERED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964--- THAT THE TEXT OF THE ACT ITSELF SHOWS AN INTENTION TO EXCLUDE THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT REINFORCES SUCH INDICATION OF INTENT AS THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE CONVEYS.
WE WOULD AGREE THAT NEITHER THE ACT NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROVIDES ANY POSITIVE INDICATION THAT THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS WAS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT. BUT A REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY INTENTION, EITHER, THAT THIS COURT WAS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED. THE REAL QUESTION IT SEEMS TO US IS WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WAS CHOSEN BY MEDITATED DESIGN TO LIMIT OPERATION OF THE ACT TO THE COURTS REFERRED TO OR WHETHER THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES TO WHICH THE CONGRESS WAS ADDRESSING ITSELF WITHOUT FOCUSING ON THE PECULIAR COURT STRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BY PROVIDING FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL CASES IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PURPOSE THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT A DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DECIDES TO PROSECUTE HIM IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT. AND WITH RESPECT TO SUCH A DEFENDANT THERE IS AMPLE PRECEDENT AS WELL AS OBVIOUS REASON FOR CONSIDERING THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS A UNITED STATES COURT. SEE MOSS V. UNITED STATES, 23 APP. D.C. 475 (1904); KEANE V. CHAMBERLAIN, 14 APP. D.C. 84 (1899); HARLAN V. HARLAN, 281 FED. 602 (C.A. D.C. 1922); CLEMMER V. ALEXANDER, 295 F.2D 176 (C.A. D.C. 1961); TIPP V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 102 F.2D 264 (C.A. D.C. 1939); UNITED STATES V. MILLS, 11 APP. D.C. 500 (1897); PAGE V. BURNSTINE, 102 U.S. 664 (1880). IF WE CONCLUDE, AS WE BELIEVE WE MUST, THAT THE COURTS IN WHICH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IS IMPLEMENTED ARE OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE TO THE INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOM ITS BENEFITS WERE INTENDED, THERE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY REASON, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC INDICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO THE CONTRARY, FOR NOT CONFERRING THOSE BENEFITS ON THE GROUND THAT A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT IS TO BE PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS RATHER THAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT. YOUR OFFICE RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE CONGRESS IN 1960 CREATED A LEGAL AID AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED IN SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT TO BRING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS WITHIN A SECOND FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAM PROVIDING FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IN OUR OPINION, THIS ARGUMENT MUST FAIL FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEGAL AID ACT, 74 STAT. 229, DEALS ONLY WITH ASSURING LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS WHO MUST SWEAR TO THEIR INABILITY TO PAY MODEST ATTORNEY'S FEES. THE BENEFITS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND THEY GO BEYOND THE MERE FURNISHING OF COUNSEL IN THAT THEY INCLUDE INVESTIGATIVE, EXPERT AND OTHER SERVICES NECESSARY TO AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE. WHILE THE TWO ACTS ARE COMPLEMENTARY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT CANNOT REASONABLY BE MAINTAINED THAT THE LEGAL AID ACT IS AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SECOND, TO HOLD THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL AID AGENCY PROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACT LIKEWISE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SINCE DEFENDANTS APPEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT ARE ALSO SERVED BY THE LEGAL AID AGENCY. SUCH A CONCLUSION IS CLEARLY UNTENABLE AND WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AT PAGE 4 OF REPT. NO. 346, 88TH CONG., 1ST SESS., OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1057, THE BILL ULTIMATELY ENACTED:
ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOW SERVED BY THE LEGAL AID AGENCY ESTABLISHED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 86-531, THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED IT ESSENTIAL TO INCLUDE THE DISTRICT WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THIS STATUTE IN ORDER TO EXTEND TO THE DISTRICT THE BENEFITS WHICH THIS ACT PROVIDES. THE AGENCY HANDLES ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE NEARLY 700 DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASES ANNUALLY ASSIGNED AND HAS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR FURNISHING EXPERT SERVICES OR REPRESENTATION IN APPELLATE CASES. INCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT WILL ENABLE ALL APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS TO BE COMPENSATED ON A BASIS COMPARABLE TO LAWYERS IN OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICTS. SINCE THE AGENCY QUALIFIES AS A LOCAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTIONS (A) (3) AND (G) OF PROPOSED SECTION 3006A OF TITLE 18, THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN BE INCORPORATED IN ANY PLAN ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT, WITHOUT MODIFICATION OF ITS PRESENT STATUTORY AUTHORITY. THE LEGAL AID AGENCY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WOULD, THEREFORE, FOR EXAMPLE, QUALIFY TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION PROVIDED FOR UNDER PROPOSED SECTION 3006A TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT MAY SO PROVIDE.
TURNING NOW TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT ITSELF, IT IS EVIDENT AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED, THAT THE CONGRESS WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATING THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS QUOTED FROM ONE OF THE ENCLOSURES TO YOUR LETTER MAKE THIS CLEAR:
SUBSECTION (I) OF SECTION 3006A PROVIDES:
(I) DISTRICTS INCLUDED.--- THE TERM "DISTRICT COURT" AS USED IN THIS SECTION INCLUDES THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM, AND THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES CREATED BY CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE.
SECTION (A) PROVIDES THAT "EACH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE CIRCUIT SHALL PLACE IN OPERATION THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT A PLAN FOR REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE. OTHER SUCCESSIVE REFERENCES ARE MADE IN SUBSECTION (A) TO "THE DISTRICT COURT.'
SUBSECTION (B) PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL REFERS TO SUCH APPOINTMENTS BEING MADE BY ,THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR THE COURT" EXCEPT IN THE FINAL SENTENCE WHICH REFERS TO ,COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT" WHO "SHALL BE SELECTED FROM A PANEL OF ATTORNEYS DESIGNATED OR APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.'
SUBSECTION (D) RELATING TO PAYMENT FOR REPRESENTATION PROVIDES, INTER ALIA THAT "A SEPARATE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT SHALL BE MADE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR THAT COURT, AND TO EACH APPELLATE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT.; " THAT "FOR REPRESENTATION OF A DEFENDANT BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER AND THE DISTRICT COURT" SPECIFIED COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID; AND THAT IN CERTAIN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS STATED MAY BE MADE "IF THE DISTRICT COURT" CERTIFIES AS TO ITS NECESSITY AND THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT "IS APPROVED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT.'
SUBSECTIONS (G) AND (H) PROVIDE:
(G) RULES AND REPORTS.--- EACH DISTRICT COURT AND JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF A CIRCUIT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT ON THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS IN SUCH FORM AND AT SUCH TIMES AS THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY SPECIFY. THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE OPERATION OF PLANS FORMULATED UNDER THIS SECTION.
(H) APPROPRIATIONS.--- THERE ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS, OUT OF ANY MONEY IN THE TREASURY NOT OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED, SUMS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. WHEN SO SPECIFIED IN APPROPRIATION ACTS, SUCH APPROPRIATIONS SHALL REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL EXPENDED. PAYMENTS FROM SUCH APPROPRIATIONS SHALL BE MADE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS.
FURTHER PROVISION IS MADE IN SECTION 3 OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE SUBMISSION OF A PLAN FOR REPRESENTATION BY "EACH DISTRICT COURT" TO "THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE CIRCUIT" AND SECTION 3 FURTHER PROVIDES FOR THE FORMULATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS IN RESPECT TO SUCH PLANS "BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES" (THE D.C. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS IS NOT REPRESENTED IN OR WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (28 U.S.C. 331) ).
NOTWITHSTANDING THE OVERALL IMPRESSION GAINED FROM THE PHRASING OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT TO THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE'S DEFINITION OF A "DISTRICT COURT.' THE STATUTE PLAINLY DOES NOT LIMIT ITS PROVISIONS FOR REPRESENTATION TO DISTRICT COURTS. WHAT IT DOES WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT COURTS IS TO SPECIFY THAT EACH OF THEM IS TO DEVISE AND, AFTER APPROVAL OR MODIFICATION BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE CIRCUIT, TO PLACE IN OPERATION A PLAN FOR ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION "THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.' UNLESS THE PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT EMBRACES ALL PLACES IN THE DISTRICT WHERE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE UNITED STATES ARE CONDUCTED, IT WILL VIOLATE THE STATUTE'S COMMAND THAT EACH DEFENDANT WHO HAS NOT WAIVED COUNSEL "SHALL BE REPRESENTED AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM HIS INITIAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR COURT THROUGH APPEAL.' THAT MANDATE CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNLESS THE STATUTE IS CONSTRUED AS PROVIDING ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFYING THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT AS EXTENDING THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT OF EACH DISTRICT COURT, USE OF THE TERM "DISTRICT COURT" THROUGHOUT THE ACT IS IN CONNECTION WITH MATTERS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATION RATHER THAN IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE SENSE DESIGNATING THE ACT'S COVERAGE. IN LIGHT OF OUR CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT WAS ENACTED FOR DEFENDANTS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT IT APPLIES TO DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, AND SINCE IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION WE, IN EFFECT, ATTRIBUTE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS TO AN OVERSIGHT ON THE PART OF THE CONGRESS RATHER THAN DESIGN, WE WOULD FURTHER CONCLUDE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE READ AS PRECLUDING THE FORMULATION OF A PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHICH EMBRACES THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND PROVIDES FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT COURT IN A PRACTICABLE MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.
FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, WE AGREE WITH JUDGE GREENE'S OPINION THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS COVERING THE UNITED STATES BRANCH OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND THAT ANY PLAN COVERING APPLICATION OF THE ACT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD INCLUDE THAT BRANCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHERS REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER MAY BE PAID. SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES TO BE REQUIRED PRECEDENT TO PAYMENT IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD NOT QUESTION PAYMENT PURSUANT TO DETERMINATIONS MADE BY JUDGES OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE CIRCUIT MIGHT PROVIDE OTHERWISE.