Fact Sheet: Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Court

National Perspective:

In a landmark study published in 1995 by the American Bar Association, A Call to Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings showed that children across the country were poorly represented and left defenseless in some jurisdictions with no attorney at all. The impact of high caseloads, exceeding 500 cases per year for public defenders, presented the biggest barrier to effective representation. Youth waiving their right to counsel, poor pretrial preparation and trial performance by attorneys, inadequate representation at dispositions and infrequency of appeals taken in juvenile cases, and lack of training and support services available to juvenile defenders were other problems in representation of youth.

Since the publication of this national report and growing concerns over fair and effective representation of youth in court in a climate of more punitive sanctions and less rehabilitation, various states have assessed the quality of representation being provided to youth in their own states. To date, state assessment reports for Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana have been published. The results of these state reports indicate, as highlighted in Ohiošs most recent publication, similar deficiencies in access to counsel and quality of representation in juvenile court that deny youth their right to counsel and effective representation.

State Perspective:

The latest state assessment report, Justice Cut Short: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Ohio, show Ohiošs indigent youth defense system failing accused youth and in desperate need of reform.

• Large numbers of poor youth waive their right to an attorney in Ohio, even during the most critical stages of proceedings;
• Overall there is a lack of meaningful representation at the arrest and detention hearing stage, little pre-trial or trial advocacy, and appellate and post-disposition work are extremely limited or non-existent in many jurisdictions;
• Critical issues, such as mental health and special needs for female offenders, are not being adequately addressed by counsel;
• There is not any real leadership in Ohio concerning the rights and needs of children in the juvenile justice system.

These deep problems in Ohiošs juvenile court system require such remedies as implementing an unwaivable right to counsel for all children at every stage of the juvenile process; providing adequate funding and resources of public defender programs; making sure counsel is appointed at the earliest stage; and training and accountability of indigent defense counsel.