The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marshall, District Judge.
There are pending in this criminal action applications by five
members of the Bar for compensation in excess of $1,000 plus
itemized expenses as prescribed as the maximum level of
compensation without approval under the Criminal Justice Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2). Subsection (d)(3) of the Act provides that
payment in excess of the statutory maximum may be authorized
where the district court certifies that the representation was
extended or complex and that the amount in excess of $1,000 is
necessary to provide fair compensation to the serving attorney.
This certification is then submitted to the Chief Judge of the
Circuit, the Honorable Thomas E. Fairchild, and if approved by
Judge Fairchild, the excess compensation is paid. For the reasons
hereinafter stated, I do certify that the representation provided
by the named lawyers to their respective clients was extended and
complex and that the amounts which I have certified to be paid to
them as fees and expenses are necessary to provide fair
compensation for their services.
Specifically, the lawyers, their clients and the amount
requested are as follow:
Martha A. Mills, Esq. represented Guadalupe Guzman, who was
found not guilty. Ms. Mills claims $3,787.50 for 126¼ hours in
court; $6,345.00 for 317¼ hours out of court and $231.90 for
itemized expenses, for a total of $10,364.40.
Michael P. Mullen, Esq. represented Pablo Del Otero, who was
found not guilty. Mr. Mullen claims $4,012.50 for 133¾ hours in
court; $2,395.00 for 119¾ hours out of court and $27.15 for
itemized expenses, for a total of $6,434.65.
Michael W. Ford, Esq. represented Guadalupe Luna, who was found
not guilty. Mr. Ford claims $3,892.50 for 129¾ hours in court,
$2,430.00 for 121½ hours out of court, and $27.68 for itemized
expenses, for a total of $6,350.18.
John A. Meyer, Esq. represented Pancho Arias, who was found not
guilty. Mr. Meyer claims $3,690.00 for 123 hours in court;
$2,860.00 for 143 hours out of court, and $84.90 for itemized
expenses, for a total of $6,634.90.
Michael G. Cheronis, Esq. represented Pablo Ortiz-Garcia,
against whom all charges were dismissed on motion of the
government after the trial had commenced. Mr. Cheronis claims
$1,125.00 for 37½ hours in court; $1,350.00 for 67½ hours out of
court, and $93.12 for itemized expenses, for a total of
This action originated as a twenty-defendant
Mexico-Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland conspiracy to import, transport
and distribute heroin. The eighteen-count indictment was returned
on September 10, 1979. Arraignments were conducted on September
11, 13, 14 and 17. Certain of the defendants were in custody.
Accordingly, at the first arraignment the case was set for trial
on November 13, 1979 well within the limits of the Speedy Trial
Thirteen defendants appeared. One, Carlos Gutierrez-Dominquez,
pleaded guilty and testified for the government. The others
announced that they would stand trial. However, prior to trial,
two pleaded guilty (although they did not testify) and the
government dismissed charges against two others. The result was
that eight defendants stood trial, although as previously noted
one (Ortiz-Garcia) was dismissed during the trial. Of the seven
who went to judgment, three were represented by
privately-retained counsel; four were represented by lawyers who
are the subject of this memorandum.
The subject matter of the prosecution extended over a period of
time commencing in 1975 and concluding in 1978. The government's
investigation began in 1976 or 1977 and continued down to the
return of the indictment. The paper generated by the government
in its investigation was voluminous. Altogether more than 1,500
pages of written materials were produced for counsel's
examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
Pre-trial preparations were made difficult by reason of the
fact that while certain of the defendants spoke English, the
witnesses who had to be interviewed and the preparations which
had to be made for trial were largely conducted in Spanish, with
the aid of interpreters.
Preparation was further affected by the fact that many of the
individual acts charged against defendants were said to have
occurred several years ago. Effective representation required
pain-staking reconstruction of the ...