The “Washoe County Indigent Defense Workload Report,” released on June 25 by the Washoe County Public Defender, details sharp increases in work hours, shows a need for more attorneys and staff and claims that a new plea policy instituted by Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks is largely responsible for increased workloads for Washoe County public defenders. The DA’s office disagrees, insists the policy enhances justice for alleged criminals and victims and says it aligns with policies in other jurisdictions. Regardless of who or what’s to blame, Washoe County’s criminal justice system is facing unprecedented amounts of work leading to clogged courts.
Subscribe to read the series
More cases are going to trial
Emily Galvin-Almanza is a lecturer at Stanford Law School and co-executive director of Partners for Justice, a national nonprofit “designed to empower public defenders nationwide.” She said a new plea policy enacted in 2023 by Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks, which rests on the expectation that a defendant is “expected to plead guilty to the most serious charge or most serious degree of charge filed” or go to trial, will naturally result in more work for attorneys.
“I can tell you, personally, as a defender … we see cases all the time that were not fully investigated, that shouldn’t have been filed in the first place, where the burden is being placed on the defense to properly investigate the case, present the right evidence, and then get charges … dismissed,” she said.
The DA’s policy has made trials more likely, so public defenders put more work into trial preparation than they would have in the past. Washoe County’s Alternate Public Defender (APD), which is constitutionally required to defend those alleged of committing crimes who can not afford an attorney, said the DA’s new policy fundamentally changed how criminal cases are resolved.
“If you look at criminal legal systems, I would say everywhere—federally, state—it almost relies on plea negotiations for the system to move,” said the APD, Kate Hickman. “There are such severe penalties that people face that, often, plea bargaining is beneficial for both sides. It allows cases to resolve quickly for people who may have been victimized to need resolution, who need to move on—whatever side that is.”
Because a single incident can lead to multiple criminal charges, negotiating for reduced charges results in cases getting resolved quicker.
“One of the biggest pieces of leverage prosecutors have is the ability to offer a lesser charge,” Galvin-Almanza said. “This is, in fact, perhaps the most common leverage that prosecutors use in the plea bargaining process of saying, ‘Hey, you’ve been charged with assault in the first degree, but if you decide to take accountability right now, we’re going to drop that charge down, and maybe you can plead guilty only to an assault in the third degree, which perhaps would not negatively impact your future as much as that first-degree charge, and it may come with lesser penalties.’”
She added that the prosecutor has the flexibility to charge a defendant, and only a prosecutor, not a judge, can offer a plea to a lesser charge. “Essentially, what this practice does is it makes there be no difference between bargaining with the prosecutor and trying to bargain with the judge. From the perspective of the defense, it essentially shuts off the value of prosecutor-driven plea bargaining.”
A former local public defender agreed. “What we saw in practice was that the deputy district attorneys had the discretion to negotiate cases without going to their supervisors if they were charged before the policy came down,” said attorney Kelsey Angeley. “On the ground, I [saw] those cases being settled, and I [now] see the cases that have been charged, since the policy came down, going to trial.”
“Why would I, as a defense attorney, advise my client to accept criminal responsibility—a conviction, a loss of freedom—when the state can’t prove its charge?”
The “Indigent Defense Workload Report” notes a result of the DA’s plea policy change “is a significant increase in the number of felony and gross misdemeanor jury trials … over the last year and half.”
Hickman said the plea policy has changed how her office defends cases. Now, she said, more cases are going to trial, and the increased work came without an increase in resources. “That approach to negotiations has … changed the way that we do work around here,” she said. “Trials are not a bad thing. I think that trials bring a lot of things to light. I think that oftentimes people will plead because it’s safe.”
The government has the burden of proving crimes have been committed. Going to trial means prosecutors have to work harder to prove their cases. Hickman said that’s not a bad thing, but more trials lead to increased work.
Angelely started to work for Hickman at the Public Defender’s office just prior to the DA’s plea bargaining standards being implemented. She left the PD’s office in July. She called the policy change self-defeating and said they are creating more not-guilty verdicts as a result of criminal defendants bargaining on the outcome of a jury trial, versus pleading to a lesser charge prior to ever going to trial.
“The plea policy does not benefit victims,” she said. “As a defense attorney I am often contacted by victims whose family members are assigned to my caseload. Victims do not always want to push forward with criminal charges.”
For example, a parent may call law enforcement because their son is experiencing a mental health crisis. That could lead to the son’s arrest and could result in various felony charges in the process, such as battery.
“Because the DA’s office will insist on proceeding on the highest possible charge, the mentally ill defendant will choose between pleading guilty to an offense directly related to his mental health condition—and, as a collateral consequence of conviction, be barred from certain public housing or treatment programs—or remain in custody while a trial is set,” Angeley added.
A defendant often pleads guilty to a lesser charge, but, under the new policy, there’s a greater incentive for defendants to take their case to trial.
“We’re fine going to trial, but we need to have the resources to do it.”
“I think that Chris Hicks’ opinion and statements presume that every charge is meritorious, and that’s where I really take issue, because not every charge is meritorious,” Angeley explained. “It’s not just a matter of being equitable towards vulnerable community members. The state can’t prove its top charge in a lot of cases. So, why would I, as a defense attorney, advise my client to accept criminal responsibility—a conviction, a loss of freedom—when the state can’t prove its charge?”
More cases going to trial means more work for attorneys and court personnel, something critics of Hicks’ policy said could be avoided. Another local attorney with knowledge of the policy and its impact, who has experience as a prosecutor and in criminal defense, spoke to This Is Reno only on the condition of anonymity.
The source said the policy change has “never been effective. It’s turned the justice system on its head. It’s really made for a lot of court congestion. Before it was changed, court dockets were already backed up for weeks and months. I don’t know why the DA is doing that.”
Both the public defender and alternate public defender said that, despite the increased workload, going to trial can benefit defendants. They said they are winning more cases.
“I don’t necessarily disagree that more trials are a bad thing,” said Washoe County Public Defender (PD) Evelyn Grosenick, who authored the workload report. “It shines a light on what’s happening in our community. It shines a light on police conduct. I think the question would be: What are the right cases that should be going to trial? Our concern is we’re fine going to trial, but we need to have the resources to do it.”
Subscribe to read the series
CORRECTION: Angeley worked for the PD’s office, not the APD as originally reported.
