Ipse Dixit

Share

Andrew Davies on Rural Access to Counsel

Season 1, Ep. 554

In this episode, Andrew Davies, Director of Research at the SMU Deadman School of Law's Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center, discusses his article Gideon in the Desert: An Empirical Study of Providing Counsel to Criminal Defendants in Rural Places, published in the Maine Law Review 2019 symposium edition. Davies discusses the issue of rural indigent defense as an issue of scarcity of resources, then explains what is required on the Gideon/Argersinger/Scott line of cases. He the explains how he went about capturing and theorizing access to counsel when collecting and analyzing data from over one hundred rural Texas counties. Davies then discusses the differences in access to counsel between urban and rural counties, while identifying the traits that make some rural counties better at consistently providing indigent defense than others. Dr. Davies's research is available on SSRN, and you can find him on Twitter at @AndySMUDeason.


This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @MaybellRomero.

More Episodes

4/29/2022

Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.