## Facts

- Leonard Peart, an indigent defendant in Orleans Parish, was charged with multiple serious felonies, including armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and first-degree murder.
- Peart was represented through the Orleans Indigent Defender Program by appointed counsel who carried an extremely heavy felony caseload (about 70 active cases).
- Counsel lacked key defense resources, including adequate investigative support, experts, support staff, and research facilities.
- The trial judge in Section E of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court developed a record concerning indigent-defense conditions in that section and found the defense services being provided to indigent defendants constitutionally deficient.
- The trial court concluded Peart could not receive effective assistance under existing conditions and issued broad orders aimed at reducing caseloads and compelling increased funding and structural changes for indigent defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Louisiana’s statutory scheme regulating indigent defense (La. R.S. 15:145, 15:146, and 15:304) and the system for securing and compensating counsel were unconstitutional as applied in New Orleans.
2. Whether the trial court had authority to impose sweeping, systemic remedies, including mandating legislative funding and structural reforms, based on conditions in a single court section.
3. How courts should protect indigent defendants’ right to effective assistance of counsel when systemic underfunding and excessive caseloads make effective representation unlikely.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s rulings declaring the indigent-defense statutes and the counsel-compensation system unconstitutional as applied in New Orleans.
- The Court reversed the trial court’s broad remedial orders requiring legislative funding and structural changes.
- The Court found, on the developed record, that indigent-defense services in Section E were constitutionally inadequate in many respects and made effective assistance unlikely for defendants dependent on that system.
- The Court remanded and ordered that Section E conduct individualized pretrial hearings on claims of inadequate assistance and apply a rebuttable presumption that indigent defendants there are not receiving constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants requires more than attorney competence; counsel must also have sufficient time and resources to provide reasonably effective representation in each individual case.
- When a court record shows that an indigent-defense system in a specific court setting is so overburdened and under-resourced that effective assistance is unlikely, a court may employ an individualized, pretrial remedial process.
- In that setting, courts may apply a rebuttable presumption of ineffective assistance, requiring the State to show that representation in the particular case is nevertheless constitutionally adequate.
- Separation-of-powers limits restrict courts from using systemic deficiencies to invalidate funding statutes broadly or to compel legislative appropriations through sweeping remedial orders, where case-specific judicial remedies can enforce constitutional guarantees.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a blanket declaration that Louisiana’s indigent-defense statutes were unconstitutional and vacated the trial court’s sweeping funding and restructuring orders, but it required Section E to protect indigent defendants through individualized pretrial hearings applying a rebuttable presumption that the prevailing indigent-defense conditions there produced ineffective assistance unless the State proved adequacy in the particular case.


State v. Peart, 621 So. 2d 780 (La. 1993)