We count on public defenders to fight for the poor, but now they are fighting their boss
You’re never in a good spot when a lot of lawyers line up against you. It’s worse when the lawyers in question are public defenders who represent poor and indigent people who can’t afford legal representation.
And it’s downright sad that these essential lawyers from the Sacramento County Public Defender’s office and many of their non-lawyer co-workers have lined up against their boss, Steven M. Garrett.
If we are a community that truly cares about justice, particularly for those who cannot afford legal representation, then turmoil in the public defender’s office is a direct threat to poor people, people of color, and people facing grave charges brought by a better-funded and far more stable Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office.
In recent weeks, 135 people who work at the public defender’s office – lawyers, investigators, support staff – were invited to answer one question: Do you have confidence in the leadership of Steven M. Garrett as public defender?
Respondents had one week to vote last month and, when that time elapsed, 114 people answered. Of that number, the vote was 106-8 “no confidence” against Garrett. The vote was conducted by the Sacramento County Attorney’s Association, the union that represents front-line assistant district attorneys, public defenders, and lawyers for the Department of Child Support Services.
However, only people who work in the public defender’s office were polled about Garrett.
In a written response to me, Garrett posited the turmoil as a political vendetta.
“The union leader who organized the no-confidence vote competed for the job of public defender, and it’s a fair inference he still wants that job,” Garrett said in an email.
Garrett is referring to Joe Cress, who has been a lawyer with the public defender’s office for 26 years. Cress did compete with Garrett for the top job in their office in 2018 when the county had to pick a successor to the long-time county public defender, Paulino Durán.
Garrett and Cress were the two finalists for the job and Garrett was the one approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Cress is also the president of the Sacramento County Attorney’s Association. But Cress is not just any lawyer.
When it came time for the public defender’s office to pick two lawyers to defend Joseph DeAngelo, the infamous Golden State Killer, Cress was one of the two public defenders selected for what was arguably the biggest criminal case in the history of Sacramento.
So clearly Garrett has no problem with the legal ability of the man he is accusing of playing politics. Why would you choose Cress for the biggest case your office ever has had unless you felt he is one of your best people – if not, the best?
That contradiction between Garrett’s current words about Cress and his past actions related to Cress is curious.
“This was not a popularity contest,” Cress said of the “no confidence” vote. “This was not about me. Employees from every part of our office voted, based on longstanding concerns that each one of them had. They did not support Garrett.”
I interviewed public defenders who did not want to go on their record, but their grievances were confirmed by Cress. The office always has been overwhelmed with work, but it’s gotten worse under Garrett, some said. Caseloads for public defenders have swelled to more than 100 cases for some lawyers.
Garrett hasn’t filled office vacancies quickly enough and too much work has fallen on too few people, some said. Garrett has set up his own kitchen cabinet in his office and too often has left his top lieutenants out of the loop.
Not everyone is against Garrett and I spoke to public defenders who were neutral about him. But those lawyers did tell me that office is rife with rumors and innuendo. They told me that Garrett has been a terrible communicator and office discord has been allowed to fester to the point of a “no confidence” vote.
Garrett said in an email that he thought some of these criticisms were unfair. “We have faced three years of budget cuts,” he wrote to me.
“We have impressive accomplishments in growing innovative holistic defense programs.”
He said he has worked to save taxpayers money through programs such as providing “children in the juvenile system with trauma-informed care and services, which has great promise to change lives and reduce recidivism... (Creating) a California State Association of Counties award-winning pre-trial program to assess the needs of people in the jail as early as possible and through grant-funded social workers provide linkages to services for people.”
The county of Sacramento has opened an investigation into allegations made by people working under Garrett. At least one county supervisor is concerned.
“Public defense is a constitutionally protected right and we have a clear obligation to ensure the integrity of the public defender’s office is sound in every respect,” Phil Serna said. “Knowing morale is low in the public defender’s office is concerning and it’s something that can’t go unaddressed.”
Garrett deserves a chance to defend himself but these are serious allegations. This is about a lot more than Joe Cress. The public defender’s office is the last line of legal defense for people who need it the most.
If the county finds the “no confidence” vote has merit, why should our community have confidence in our ability to provide justice to those who desperately need it?
