The challenge : evaluating indigent defense : North Carolina systems evaluation project performance measures guide - Page 45 |
Previous | 45 of 73 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
NC Office of Indigent Defense Services—July 2012
NCSEP System Performance Measures Reference Guide
Rationale: The protection of clients’ constitutional rights is sacrosanct in a fair and just criminal justice system. Vigorous motions practice is often necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the criminally accused. In addition, the presence of motions practice is indicative that a client is receiving quality representation.
Performance Measures/ Indicators: % of cases with “X” pretrial motions by type of amendment (different X for different case/amendment types), including discovery motions % of filed pretrial motions that were granted % of cases where defendant refused to make statements to police # of days between arrest and indictment by pretrial release status (prevent clients languishing in jail, cannot file pretrial motion until indictment) % of cases where defendant waives right to counsel during police interrogation and subsequently requests appointed counsel # of days between indictment and resolution of case
Goal: Best Possible Outcomes for Clients
Objective: Client’s 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14thAmendment Rights Are Protected
“When society acts to deprive one of its members of his life, liberty, or property, it takes its most awesome steps. No general respect for, nor adherence to, the law as a whole can well be expected without judicial recognition of the paramount need for prompt, eminently fair and sober criminal law procedures. The methods we employ in the enforcement of our criminal law have aptly been called the measures by which the quality of our civilization may be judged.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 449 (1962) 37
Object Description
Description
| Title | The challenge : evaluating indigent defense : North Carolina systems evaluation project performance measures guide - Page 45 |
| Full Text | NC Office of Indigent Defense Services—July 2012 NCSEP System Performance Measures Reference Guide Rationale: The protection of clients’ constitutional rights is sacrosanct in a fair and just criminal justice system. Vigorous motions practice is often necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the criminally accused. In addition, the presence of motions practice is indicative that a client is receiving quality representation. Performance Measures/ Indicators: % of cases with “X” pretrial motions by type of amendment (different X for different case/amendment types), including discovery motions % of filed pretrial motions that were granted % of cases where defendant refused to make statements to police # of days between arrest and indictment by pretrial release status (prevent clients languishing in jail, cannot file pretrial motion until indictment) % of cases where defendant waives right to counsel during police interrogation and subsequently requests appointed counsel # of days between indictment and resolution of case Goal: Best Possible Outcomes for Clients Objective: Client’s 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14thAmendment Rights Are Protected “When society acts to deprive one of its members of his life, liberty, or property, it takes its most awesome steps. No general respect for, nor adherence to, the law as a whole can well be expected without judicial recognition of the paramount need for prompt, eminently fair and sober criminal law procedures. The methods we employ in the enforcement of our criminal law have aptly been called the measures by which the quality of our civilization may be judged.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 449 (1962) 37 |
