Search

A woman who retained a private attorney instead of a public defender was denied funds to secure an expert in support of her defense, effectively denying her constitutional rights unless she waived her right to retain willing private counsel; ACLU-NH appealed to the NH Supreme Court.

Defendant Heidi Brouillette is an indigent defendant charged with several offenses.  Though she was initially provided a public defender, she chose to retain a private attorney for a substantially-reduced fee.  During the criminal proceedings, her private attorney informed the trial court that she was going to plead not guilty by reason of insanity given her mental health conditions.  Ms. Brouillette also filed a request that the State provide $2,000 in funds to secure an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation in support of her insanity defense.  The trial court denied Ms. Brouillette’s request without examining whether these funds were necessary for an adequate defense.  Instead, the trial court concluded that, because Ms. Brouillette is represented by a private attorney, her “ability to pay [for the expert] is presumed.”  The trial court further explained: “The defendant may proceed with current counsel at her expense or, if she continues to qualify for court appointed counsel, the Public Defender’s office will be reassigned and then it can determine whether services other than counsel are warranted.”

Protestors charged with violating a curfew ordinance and criminal trespass when they set up an occupation of Veteran’s Park in Manchester appealed their case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court arguing that the application of those laws to the peaceful protest violated their rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH) defended several protestors charged with violations of a curfew ordinance and criminal trespass when they set up a twenty-four hour occupation of Veteran’s Park in Manchester.  The ACLU-NH filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges, arguing that the application of the curfew and trespass laws to the peaceful protest violated the Defendants’ rights to free speech, assembly, and revolution under the New Hampshire Constitution.  After a full day hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

The ACLU-NH filed an amicus brief asking the NH Supreme Court to end the practice of sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole ("JLWOP") and arguing that a US Supreme Court decision apply retroactively to four New Hampshire children sentenced to JLWOP.