Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public defender outlines investigator, evidence‑storage needs and steady caseloads amid staffing pressures
Summary
The public defender and county legal defender described investigator and evidence‑storage needs, rising case complexity and staffing structure; the county manager recommended selective one‑time technology funding and a cautious approach to adding recurring FTEs.
Public defender Jennifer Stock and Legal Defender director Joe Carver briefed Coconino County supervisors May 7 on their offices’ budgets, staffing, and rising costs for digital evidence management and investigative support.
Lede: Both defense offices told the Board of Supervisors they are absorbing more complex casework—especially online evidence and psychosexual evaluations—while asking the county to prioritize investigator capacity and affordable, searchable evidence storage that includes transcription and clip tools.
Nut graf: The public defender asked the board to fund investigator positions and Axon/other evidence storage costs; county management recommended one‑time technology funding while prioritizing compensation and vacancy management across departments.
Body: Jennifer Stock summarized the public defender’s top FY26 request: converting limited‑term ARPA positions (investigators and an attorney) into ongoing full‑time staff, and funding evidence storage and transcription software (Axon Justice or similar). She described investigator duties—finding clients who miss court, locating witnesses, documenting injuries and crime scenes, and indexing hours of recorded jail calls—and explained why those tasks are expensive to contract for and operationally crucial.
Axon/evidence storage: Stock said a prior Axon evidence.com contract cost about $5,000 annually; a migration to a modern hosted platform raised vendor estimates (one early vendor estimate reached about $40,000) and that she had explored alternatives with IT and county partners. She asked for a modest set of licenses keyed to needs (e.g., automatic transcription and clip tools) so attorneys can search multi‑hour recordings more efficiently.
Legal defender and caseloads: Joe Carver described the legal defender’s dual administrative role: direct representation (title 36 mental‑health cases, guardianship, appeals) and management of contracted legal services when public defenders cannot ethically represent a conflict case. Carver said his office took around 3,600 new case openings in fiscal year 2024—about 10 new cases per workday—and that roughly two‑thirds of those were felony cases (about 2,600), handled by a subset of superior‑court attorneys. He reported a total of about 18 attorneys in the legal defender office and said the office remains near full strength after a long vacancy earlier in the year.
Data and fees: Araceli (office administrator) provided a breakdown: felony cases ~2,600; misdemeanors ~400; juvenile/dependency ~200. The office uses several special revenue sources—court fee funds, House Bill allocations for dependency work and federal Title IV‑E dollars—for dependency representation, training and research; however, state court fee revenues used for training and other support have trended down in recent years and will require monitoring.
Investigators and contracts: Both offices described the limits of paying hourly to outside investigators for many small investigative tasks and urged the board to consider a modest in‑house investigation/paralegal capacity so attorneys can do more robust mitigation and timely evidence collection for custody cases. Management recommended a combination of a county‑wide approach to software costs (one‑time set‑aside for technology) and prioritizing core personnel pay adjustments over new recurring positions this fiscal year.
Supervisors’ questions: Supervisors asked about the number of attorneys, whether Page cases could be handled remotely, and how contracted counsel is recruited; staff said many attorneys are willing to travel but in‑person pleas remain common in outlying justice courts and that getting attorneys from Maricopa County can be costly because of travel and unfamiliarity with local dockets.
Ending: Attorneys thanked the board; management said it would follow up with specific cost estimates for Axon licenses and investigator budget options. Supervisors asked for a written follow‑up on contract usage and the fee‑fund balance.
