Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District court warns commissioners: appointed counsel and juror costs are constitutionally required
Summary
The Fremont County district court judge urged the commission to preserve funding for court-appointed counsel and juror fees, saying caseloads for abuse and neglect and involuntary hospitalization cases are high and that local lawyers are scarce and paid at low state rates.
Judge Jason Condor, Fremont County’s district court judge for the Ninth Judicial District, told the Board of County Commissioners that most of the court’s budget is for contract counsel and juror costs that are constitutionally or statutorily required.
Condor said Fremont County has one of the highest caseloads for abuse and neglect cases in the state and that the county’s workload, as measured by the Wyoming Judicial Branch, is equivalent to about 1.5 judges because of high volumes. He told commissioners that appointed counsel for abuse-and-neglect and Title 25 (involuntary hospitalization) proceedings are mandated and often take more time than routine hearings.
The judge described a shrinking pool of attorneys willing to accept court-appointed cases locally and said the county pays among the lowest rates in the state for those services. He urged commissioners to recognize that some contractual services in the court’s budget cannot be reduced without compromising constitutional rights to counsel or the statutory requirement to pay juror fees.
Condor also reviewed juror costs. He said the court requested $30,000 for juror fees last year but used about $11,000 and anticipated roughly $4,000 more before the fiscal year closed; he noted unpredictability in trial scheduling. He warned the commission that a four-week civil medical-malpractice trial scheduled for the coming year would significantly increase juror costs.
On smaller items, Condor asked that a $3,600 line described in the budget as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) rental or subsidy be removed from the district court budget and handled by the entity responsible for the GAL program. He said he did not want that rental subsidy to count against the court’s operating budget and noted auditors require vouchers be signed by someone confirming work occurred.
Commissioners discussed the court’s projected contractual-services increase and expressed an understanding of statutory constraints. They agreed to tentatively reduce some discretionary lines but indicated they would leave sufficient contingency to cover mandated expenses and allow the court to return for additional funds if a large trial required it.
