On February 5, 2002, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association, “adopts or reaffirms THE TEN PRINCIPLES OF A PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM,” which constitute the Bar Associations fundamental standards to be met for a public defense delivery system. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1: “The public defense function, including the selection, funding, and payment of defense counsel, is independent.”  The text of this principle, among other things, refers to the undue political and judicial pressures.  California as a whole most likely does not meet this standard, as it is doubtful this type of independence exists within the present schemes anywhere in the State. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2: “Where the caseload is sufficiently high, the public defense delivery system consists of both a defender office and the active participation of the private bar.”  In basic principle, most jurisdictions comply with this standard.  The text of “2" declares the funding of defense services to be a responsibility of the state based on the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright.  It is doubtful California adequately funds this program.  And, in Shasta county, the private bar does not become involved unless the contract public defender office of Steven Kennedy declares a conflict of interest.  This crosses over into Principle Number 5. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4:  “Defense counsel is provided sufficient time and a confidential space with which to meet with the client.”  In Shasta County, the Contract Public Defender Office of Steven Kennedy rarely if ever confer with their clients confidentially.  Instead, they meet with their clients in the crowded Court Jail Holding Cell in the presence of numerous other inmates immediately before a court appearance, or they take them just outside the holding cell in a stairwell area.  Neither location offers any confidentiality, nor is such a location available for incarcerated defendants within the court area.  Other attorneys who do attempt to confer confidentially with their clients in the special rooms provided in the jail itself, often complain that the jail bureaucracy takes far too long to process their access to clients. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 5:  “Defense counsel’s workload is controlled to permit the rendering of quality representation.”  In this area, when it comes to the Kennedy Office contract representation in Shasta County, this is an absolute joke.  The Kennedy Office take all comers under their contract, unless there is a previously established conflict of interest.  Each Kennedy Office attorney can be observed on any given day accepting up to five new felony cases per day.  Principle 5 allows for a maximum of only 150 felony cases per year.  They now exceed these maximum standards by several multiples. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 6: “Defense counsel’s ability, training, and experience match the complexity of the case.”  In Shasta County, this is only adhered to in capital murder cases.  Otherwise, due to the contract terms, the three attorneys of the Kennedy Office are assigned all other defendants, unless there is a specific conflict of interest. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 7: “The same attorney continues represents the client until completion of the case.”  In Shasta County, when the Kennedy Office is appointed, this is a sometimes followed procedure.  However, there are three attorneys in that office, and any one of them may appear for a defendant at any given time. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 8: “There is parity between defense counsel and the prosecution with respect to resources and defense counsel is included as an equal partner in the justice system.”  Among its many requirements, this principle requires both the prosecution and defense to have equal access to resources such as “technology, facilities, legal research, support staff, paralegals, investigators, and access to forensic services and experts.”  There are many more criteria in this section where Shasta County fails horribly.  The Kennedy Office attorneys are often heard complaining they must do their own research and investigation personally, that they are never allowed enough time to conduct both an investigation and a defense, and that there is a lack of funding for any of these items.  They never use experts.  This Principle calls for one investigator for every three attorneys, and at least one investigator in every office. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 9: “Defense counsel is provided with and required to attend continuing legal education.”  This has been a requirement to remain licensed in California for some time, and therefore, most likely all attorneys practicing law in this State are in compliance. 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 10: “Defense counsel is supervised and systematically reviewed for quality and efficiency according to nationally and locally adopted standards.”  They fail this Principle miserable in Shasta County.  One of the three Kennedy Office attorneys, Elliot Burick, has had Ineffective Assistance of Counsel found against him by the California Third District Court of Appeals.  He has had several complaints listed against him at the California State Bar Association, yet he continues to repeat the same failures with impunity in Shasta County.  The complaints in this area cross over with those also covered in Principle 1, where that rule talks about proper and independent oversight.  The only oversight in Shasta County is through what is called “Marsden Motion,” and is made to the Judge on the case by the defendant.  These are rarely won by the defendant, because he is then by himself pitted against his attorney in a very lopsided and biased courtroom scene.  There is nothing independent about Judges and Attorneys overseeing one another.