Private attorneys contracted by a public defenders’ office are unlawfully working to undermine the effects of a ballot proposition that denies bail to illegal immigrants accused of serious felonies, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said at an April 30 press conference.
But Thomas’ accusation of unauthorized activity by contracted attorneys is strongly rejected by a county official who oversees several offices that appoint defense attorneys to indigent defendants.
Thomas said attorneys contracted by the Office of Contract Counsel are advising defendants to refuse to answer immigration related questions in order to sidestep the intention of Prop. 100 at initial appearance hearings, which are held to determine the conditions of a defendant’s possible release.
And the attorneys, which Thomas says ae being paid up to $100 an hour from public funds, are unlawfully counseling defendants before court commissioners determine whether the suspects are poor enough to qualify for public defenders.
He called the practice the “new front” of the fight to make sure Prop.100, a 2006 ballot initiative that passed by wide margin, is complied with by court personnel and defense attorneys, whom he accuses of “subverting” voter intention and “undermining the Arizona Constitution.”
“The current practice of OCAC attorneys advising and purporting to represent defendants prior to a determination of indigence and appointment of counsel is improper,” Thomas wrote in a letter sent to Peter Ozanne, the assistant county manager for criminal justice. “Further advising defendants to refuse to answer questions about citizenship wrongly deprives the court of relevant information necessary to determine eligibility for bail pursuant to Proposition 100.”
Several days after Thomas’ press conference, Ozanne replied in writing, stating the defense attorneys are now at the initial appearances only because Thomas himself previously ordered prosecutors to attend the hearings.
“The absence of attorneys for either side at any court appearance raises the possibility of erroneous court decisions resulting from a lack of information or thorough legal argument,” said Ozanne, adding he was legally “unable” to direct defense counsel on how to advise defendants regarding their rights under Prop.100.
And further, under confidential attorney-client communications, nothing is unlawful about advising defendants to avoid answering questions from government officials, which “could lead to their prosecution or prolonged incarceration,” wrote Ozanne.
“I look forward to the results of the legal arguments your office will no doubt present to the courts of the state of Arizona regarding this matter,” he said.