I am incredibly pleased to start off Volume 43 of Justice System Journal with a Special Issue entitled “Justice For All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense”. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj.
This issue reflects a special issue on Indigent Defense, guest edited by Andrew Davies (Southern Methodist University) and Janet Moore (University of Cincinnati). Dr. Davies and Professor Moore are the co-founders and leaders of the Indigent Defense Research Association, a research collaborative focused on answering empirical questions surrounding indigent defense to improve its practice. Each year they publish a collection of novel empirical research representing the best of this field, and Justice System Journal is honored to host this year’s collection. Dr. Davies and Professor Moore have once again produced a Special Issue that will be adding to the broader literature on indigent defense for years to come.
This Special Issue begins with an Introduction by Dr. Davies and Professor Moore that provides the background for this research collection, as well as previewing the overarching themes contained in the proceeding research articles.
The first set of articles focus on how to assess attorney-client relationships. Our first article is by Heather Pruss (Bellarmine University), M. Sandys (Indiana University), and S.M. Walsh (Indiana University Southeast), entitled “”Listen, Hear My Side, Back Me Up’: What Clients Want from Public Defenders.” As the title notes, this study presents the results of a survey investigating client evaluations and expectations for public defenders. The second article, “Bridging the Gap Between Clients and Public Defenders: Introducing a Structured Shadow Method to Examine Attorney Communication,” by Christopher Campbell (Portland State University) and Kelsey Henderson (Portland State University), similarly attempts to identify what leads to better attorney-client communications. This piece also introduces a novel methodological approach for systematically assessing what are normally legally protected conversations.
The next group of articles focuses on attorneys and judges in the indigent defense system. In “‘Satan’s Minions’ and ‘True Believers’: How Criminal Defense Attorneys Employ Quasi-Religious Rhetoric and What It Suggests About Lawyering Culture,” Elizabeth Webster (Loyola University), Kathleen Powell (Drexel University), Sarah E. Lageson (Rutgers University), and Valerio Baćak (Rutgers University) explore the effect the use of quasi-religious language by public defenders has on their relationships with others in the criminal defense system. The study also uncovers interesting links between public defender attitudes and tenure in the field. Peter Leasure (York College), John Burrow (University of South Carolina), Gary Zhang (independent researcher), and Hunter Boehme (North Carolina Central University) turn to the question of how attorneys give notice, if at all, about collateral consequences in “Collateral Consequences of Conviction in South Carolina Courts: A Study of South Carolina Defense Lawyers.” The final article in this section, “Access to Counsel for Defendants in Lower Criminal Courts,” by Alyssa M. Clark (New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services), Andrew Davies (Southern Methodisst University), and Karise M. Curtis (independent researcher) examine when judges grant access to counsel for indigent defendants, as well as when they do not, and why. Concerns about the scarcity of available counsel emerged, as well the concept of a “procedurally precautious judge” focused on ensuring fairness even in the face of logistical hurdles to access to counsel.
The final set of articles focus on outcomes and assessments of the efficacy of criminal defense systems. Alisa Smith (University of Central Florida) and Sean Maddan (Texas A&M International University) explore whether having a defense attorney, whether public or private, improves criminal justice outcomes in “The Interaction between Legal Representation and Extralegal Factors on Nonviolent Misdemeanor Case Outcomes.” Their finding suggest both that public and private defense do not offer equal benefits to criminal defendants, and also that certain groups may further benefit disproportionately from retaining private counsel. We end with “Client Perspectives of Holistic Defense: Strengthening Procedural Justice through Enhanced Client Trust,” by Kimberly M. Davidson (Florida State University), Brian J. Ostrom (National Center for State Courts), and Matthew Kleiman (Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing). Their assessment of holistic defense models reveals the use of these methods may increase clients’ fairness and trust evaluations of the criminal defense system.
Each of these articles offer a wealth of new empirical evidence on key questions related to indigent defense. They also show the variety of methodological and theoretical approaches to studying these important issues. And, finally, they leave us with a series of crucial yet still to be answered questions for future scholars to investigate.
My sincere thanks to Dr. Davies and Professor Moore for their work in guest editing this issue, as well as to the authors and reviewers who made it possible. I hope you enjoy reading this Special Issue on Indigent Defense.
Editor-in-Chief
Georgia State University