University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name White v. Martz PD-MT-0001
Docket / Court C DV-2002-133 ( State Court )
State/Territory Montana
Case Type(s) Indigent Defense
Case Summary
In February 2002, indigent defendants with criminal cases pending in Montana state courts in Butte-Silver Bow, Missoula, Glacier, Teton, Flathead, Lake, and Ravalli Counties filed a class action lawsuit against these counties and the state pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented ... read more >
In February 2002, indigent defendants with criminal cases pending in Montana state courts in Butte-Silver Bow, Missoula, Glacier, Teton, Flathead, Lake, and Ravalli Counties filed a class action lawsuit against these counties and the state pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and a private attorney, filed in the Montana First Judicial District Court, challenging the adequacy of the public defense system in the state of Montana. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that Montana (1) failed to provide constitutionally and statutorily adequate legal representation to indigent adults in criminal cases, (2) failed to ensure that the State's Appellate Defender Commission propose to the Montana Supreme Court minimum standards to which all trial and appellate public defenders, including locally appointed private counsel, must conform, and (3) failed to ensure that the State's Appellate Defender Commission keep current, and supply to all justices and judges in the state, a statewide roster of competent attorneys eligible for appointment. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Sections 4, 17, and 24 of Article II of the Montana Constitution, and other provisions of state law and sought injunctive and declaratory relief.

In 2003, the ACLU retained the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) as an expert to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of criminal defense services rendered to the indigent in Montana. This culminated in a report that identified numerous deficiencies in the state's defense system, and substantially supported the plaintiffs' allegations. See NLADA Expert Report, Aug. 4, 2004, at 1-3. The NLADA report focused on the state's failure to comply with the American Bar Association's (ABA) Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System. These ten principles were adopted by the ABA in 2002 as guidelines that state's indigent defense systems should meet. The NLADA report concluded that Montana's system failed to meet the majority of these ten principles.

On May 7, 2004, while the NLADA's assessment was still on-going, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Order of Postponement of Trial to allow the 2005 Montana legislature to enact legislation that would adequately address Montana's indigent defense system. On April 16, 2005, the Montana legislature passed Senate Bill 146, titled The Montana Public Defender Act, which was signed into law on April 28, 2005. The Act substantially reformed the state's public defender system. It established a statewide public defender system, as well as an 11-member public defender commission that would hire Montana's first Chief Public Defender, establish uniform standards for the provision of indigent legal services, provide funding for the use of investigators and experts, and oversee training and technical assistance.

After the Act was passed, the defendants moved to dismiss the case on grounds of mootness. Montana argued that since the Act would entirely replace the system challenged by the plaintiffs, the case was rendered moot. The plaintiffs conceded that the Act addressed their substantive concerns, but expressed concern about the adequacy of funding available to implement the law, and argued that the case would not be rendered moot until the new system was actually in place.

On January 25, 2006, the court (Judge Thomas C. Honzel) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. White v. Martz, 2006 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 136, Docket No. CDV-2002-133, *1. (Mont. Dist. Ct. Jan. 12, 2006). Judge Honzel agreed that there was no way of knowing whether the new system would be adequately funded, but stressed that any challenge to the Act would in fact be a completely new lawsuit. Accordingly, Judge Honzel dismissed the suit.

Michelle Reed - 07/11/2007
Greg in den Berken - 11/11/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
General
Funding
Quality of representation
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Butte-Silver Bow County
Flathead County
Glacier County
Lake County
Missoula County
Ravalli County
State of Minnesota
Teton County
Plaintiff Description All indigent persons who have or will have criminal cases pending in the district courts in the Counties and who rely or will rely upon the Counties to provide them with defense counsel.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2006
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Indigent Defense Reform: The Role of Systemic Litigation in Operationalizing the Gideon Right to Counsel
Written: May. 07, 2007
By: Vidhya K. Reddy (Washington University in St. Louis)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel.
Written: Apr. 14, 2009
By: National Right to Counsel Committee (The Constitution Project)
Citation: National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel (2009)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Securing Reasonable Caseloads: Ethics and Law in Public Defense
By: Norman Lefstein (Indiana University--Indianapolis)
Citation: (ABA 2011)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  The Third Generation of Indigent Defense Litigation
New York University Review of Law and Social Change
By: Cara Drinan (Columbus School of Law, Catholic University)
Citation: 33 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 427 (2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Montana Indigent Defense Fact Sheet
PD-MT-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Indigent Defense Standards: How Montana Measures Up
PD-MT-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Amended Complaint 04/14/2002
PD-MT-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
NACDL Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 01/01/2003
PD-MT-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
An Assessment of Indigent Defense Services In Montana [Expert Report from The National Legal Aid & Defender Association] 08/04/2004
PD-MT-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
Opinion and Order [Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss with Conditions and Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss] 01/25/2006 (2006 Mont.Dist.LEXIS 136)
PD-MT-0001-0006.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Judges Honzel, Thomas C. (State Trial Court)
PD-MT-0001-0006
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brenneman, Beth (Montana)
PD-MT-0001-0001
Dahlberg, Robin L. (New York)
PD-MT-0001-0001
North, Julie A. (New York)
PD-MT-0001-0001
Warren, E. Vincent (New York)
PD-MT-0001-0001
Waterman, Ronald F. (Montana)
PD-MT-0001-0001
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -