Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appellate Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates back rule‑based appellate deadlines for indigent cases, urge enforcement mechanisms
Summary
Commenters supported a proposal to set clear briefing and oral‑argument timelines in indigent appellate cases (ADM 2025‑37) but said deadlines must be paired with meaningful accountability for transcript production and appointed counsel performance to protect defendants’ rights.
Speakers at the hearing supported ADM 2025‑37, which proposes rule‑based briefing deadlines and mini‑oral arguments for leave applications in cases involving appointed counsel.
Jacqueline McCann reiterated a formal comment from her office and asked the court to extend the proposed deadline framework (written for E1 cases) to E2 cases as well. Beth Ayers supported clear appellate procedures for indigent defendants but emphasized that deadlines alone are not enough; she called for mechanisms to ensure timely transcript production, accountability for appointed counsel, and protection against procedural abandonment.
Ayers said appellate rights are time‑sensitive and that procedural confusion can permanently affect a defendant’s ability to obtain review. The court took the comments into the record for consideration with its rulemaking process.
