Friday, May 15, 2015
Page 3
C.A. Says Lawyers May Meet With Clients in Non-Partitioned Jail Rooms
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Criminal defense lawyers must be allowed to meet with their clients in rooms without glass partitions between them, absent individualized security concerns, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In an April 23 ruling, certified yesterday for publication, the court upheld an order by a Nevada Superior Court judge requiring Nevada County jail officials to restore the prior, general policy of allowing attorneys to meet with the clients without barriers between them. The county changed the policy in 2013, saying that as a result of having more inmates and fewer employees, the jail could no longer handle its volume of attorney-client “contact visits.”
Evidence presented at a hearing on a writ petition brought by inmates showed that attorneys and clients must meet in a glass-partitioned visitors room, where they can only communicate via a telephone hookup or by speaking loud enough to be heard through an opening similar to a mail slot. Lawyers complained that they had to speak loudly, compromising confidentiality, even when using the telephone.
The policy permits exceptions, but the evidence showed that only about one exception per week has been granted, always in cases where attorneys needed to review recordings or voluminous documents with the clients, even though teachers and ministers can meet with inmates in an open, multipurpose room located near the visiting area.
Otherwise, documents have to be slipped through the slot.
The jail commander said he tested the sound on the attorney side of the barrier, and did not believe that conversations could be overheard. There was no soundproofing on the inmate said, he said, because whatever material they used would likely be stolen or vandalized.
Inmate attorneys presented testimony by a psychologist regarding the impact of the barrier on communication and confidentiality, and a former jail commander testified that the previous policy had worked well. There was also undisputed evidence that the vast majority of attorney-client jail visits in California and elsewhere are conducted in rooms without partitions.
After the trial judge granted the inmates’ consolidated motions challenging the policy, the county sought a writ of mandate or prohibition from the Court of Appeal, which granted a stay. But after briefing by the parties and their amici—law enforcement groups supporting the county and defense attorney groups backing the inmates—the court denied the writ and dissolved the stay.
Justice Louis Mauro expressed sympathy for the county’s concerns, but said it had “exaggerated” its response.
He noted that the county failed to cite any justification based on the actual effects of the prior policy; that the county could, as an alternative, bring inmates to the nearby courthouse for attorney visits, although the justice acknowledged this was “not optimal” given the logistics of transport and the limited facilities available; that there was no evidence the costs of providing the visits would be extraordinary, and that the county’s security concerns could be addressed with additional locks, cameras, and training.
The case is County of Nevada v. Superior Court (Siegfried), 15 S.O.S. 2389.
Copyright 2015, Metropolitan News Company