Who gets a free lawyer in Dakota County?

On a busy morning recently, Dakota County District Judge Michael Mayer warned defendants -- as he does routinely -- that they could be charged with a felony if they lie about their finances just to get a public defender.

It's a message more important than ever, with a budget crisis that has meant fewer public defenders. But attempts to determine eligibility of defendants seeking public defenders are surprisingly inconsistent from county to county, and judges are often forced to rely on gut instinct when deciding who will get those services.

To remove some guesswork, Dakota County has begun a pilot project in which screeners gather financial data on all defendants who apply for a public defender. The information is given to judges, who must decide at a fast pace which defendants will be eligible.

For years, the county has had screeners go to the jail to interview defendants to see whether they qualify, based on federal poverty guidelines. Now, the screening has expanded to also include defendants who are not in custody.

Screeners set up shop in conference rooms near courtrooms in Hastings, Apple Valley and West St. Paul. They ask defendants about finances, including rent or mortgage payments. Some are asked to bring in documents, from a tax return to proof of public assistance.

"We can spend the time with the people and ask the right questions," said Carol Renn, Dakota County District Court administrator.

"We want to make sure that the people who get the services of the public defender actually qualify for those services."

And beyond that, judges report little confidence in the accuracy of information they use to weigh whether someone can afford a private attorney, according to a report in February by the Office of the Legislative Auditor.

That report recommends the Legislature enact fixed income standards for public defender eligibility.

"We all have to work together to make the system work," Renn said. "If we can say to the judge, 'This person doesn't qualify,' at least we're making the effort to help the public defenders."

While screeners would not ask people to sell their homes, if they have a $10,000 boat or a second car, they may be told they have assets they could liquidate, she said.

Dakota County judges and public defenders have developed their own income standards that are tied to the seriousness of the charge. Those charged with serious offenses can earn up to $20 an hour and qualify for a public defender. Those charged with the least serious offenses can earn up to $12 an hour.

Phil Prokopowicz, chief deputy of the Dakota County attorney's office, said prosecution of cheaters is rare. One reason, he acknowledged, could be too little verifying of what people claim on their applications.

Prokopowicz said eyebrows occasionally have been raised when a defendant claims poverty and gets a public defender, yet comes up with $10,000 for bail.

There have been cases, too, when someone with a public defender is found to own a luxury car or is able to afford a private attorney after months of using a public defender.

Statewide, courts rarely verify with third-party sources information that defendants put on public defender applications. Only half of state judges surveyed said they sometimes required verification.

Time to crack down?

"It's useful because, otherwise, we have just the application with no verification and no real follow-up," said Judge Edward Lynch, chief of the First Judicial District, which includes Dakota, Scott, Carver and four other counties.

Renn said as the process is fine-tuned, and as manpower becomes available, she hopes more verification will be done.

The expanded Dakota system is mostly a reaction to state budget cuts that are leading to 18 percent fewer public defenders than three years ago.

"The system is broke," Judge Mayer told defendants recently.

He knows public defender workloads are too high, leaving lawyers too little time to spend with clients, prepare for court or cover calendars.

"Public defender time has become a scarce resource in the court system," Stuart said. "We need to be working with the court system to come to a consensus about who really is eligible, and then to carry it out throughout the state."