Demand for capital defense attorneys may soon skyrocket in Idaho due to new law
Earlier this year, Idaho legislators passed a bill to allow some cases of lewd conduct with child under age 12 with aggravating circumstances to be punishable by death, despite knowing the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a similar law unconstitutional. (Getty Images)
This story was first published by Idaho Reports on May 9, 2025.
Earlier this year, Idaho legislators passed a bill to allow some cases of lewd conduct with child under age 12 with aggravating circumstances to be punishable by death, despite knowing the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a similar law unconstitutional.
The bill did not allocate any additional money for the Idaho State Public Defender's Office. Instead, the fiscal note says the office will have additional expenditures should a defendant be assigned a public defender by the court.
This could be a major flaw. The challenge is more about more than just money. It's about meeting what is required by law and agency rules – and when the death penalty is a possible sentence, those requirements are stricter than other criminal defense cases.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles all criminal defendants to a public attorney if they cannot afford one. But prior state rule and national legal guidance say defendants who are facing the death penalty require more representation. The court grants those defendants a lead counselor and co-counselor, sometimes referred to as the second chair attorney.
In 2024, prosecutors filed 382 charges of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 16, according to Idaho Supreme Court data. That doesn't mean all of those led to convictions, and not all of those victims were 12 or younger.
Compare that to the 30 first-degree murder charges filed in 2024, according to Idaho Supreme Court data. Until House Bill 380's passage, first-degree murder was the only crime punishable by death in Idaho.
Not all 30 of those charges would have been death penalty cases, as some would not have had necessary aggravating circumstances or a plea agreement could have been reached. Still, that's less than one tenth of the charges filed of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 16.
Under the Public Defense Commission's now expired rules, any defendant who is charged with a crime that is potentially punishable by death required representation from a 'capital qualified defending attorney.' The new Idaho Office of the Public Defender hasn't yet adopted rules.
Capital qualified attorneys have advanced familiarity with the laws around capital mitigation and jury selection methods. They also meet or exceed American Bar Association Guidelines and criminal defense experience.
In an April interview with Idaho Reports, State Public Defender Eric Fredericksen said his understanding was that the Public Defense Commission's rules became defunct after his office opened, but added he was not part of that decision-making process.
The Public Defense Commission first established rules in 2016 regarding caseloads and training for public defenders after a massive lawsuit, Tucker v. Idaho, found Idaho's public defense system to be insufficient. The lawsuit is what led Idaho to the eventual establishment of a statewide public defense system. Until the Idaho Office of the Public Defender opened in October 2024, individual counties funded public defense.
Under the commission's rules, lead counsel in a capital case needed at least 10 years in criminal defense and felony jury experience and have served as lead or co-counsel in at least one tried capital case to verdict, among other requirements.
Co-counsel must have at least five years in criminal defense and felony jury experience and have served as lead or co-counsel in at least one tried capital case to verdict, among other requirements.
The new Idaho Office of the Public Defender has been following the guidelines of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, but has no formal state rules of its own. Those association guidelines require less criminal defense experience than the state's former rules, but still more than non-capital felony defense standards.
A handful of national organizations offer trainings for capital cases, but Fredericksen notes that making the case for life, as it's often referred to by defense attorneys, is different in murder cases than it would be for lewd conduct cases. There's a playbook for defense attorneys in capital murder cases. Having the death penalty on the table for lewd conduct creates a different scenario.
Why the extra rules? A person's life is on the line.
As of April 23, Idaho had 13 attorneys who are qualified to be lead counsel on a capital case. Five are employees of the State Public Defender's Office and eight are private attorneys. There are an additional 18 Idaho attorneys who qualify to be second chair on a capital case.
That means there are only 13 potential lawyers qualified to represent the people charged under the new crime of aggravated lewd conduct with a minor younger than age 12, on top of the other capital cases that may already be on their plates.
Prosecutors won't necessarily seek the death penalty as punishment against every person who is charged with lewd conduct with a minor under 12, but the defense attorneys have an obligation to begin preparing as if it were at the time the charge is filing.
'The moment the charge of (aggravated lewd and lascivious) with a minor under 12 is filed, regardless of whether a death notice is filed, we will begin treating it as a death penalty case,' Fredericksen said. 'So, two attorneys will be handling the case, find a mitigation expert, we find an investigator. You have to start that work on Day 1 because the prosecution starts that work on Day 1.'
Fredericksen's office remained neutral on the bill. He did write to sponsors Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee, and House Assistant Minority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, on March 14, stating that he did not have data on how many of the victims in cases they represented were 12 or younger, nor did he have data on how many of them had aggravating circumstances.
On March 18, the State Appellate Public Defender Erik Lehtinen wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee Chairman Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, and cc'd the bill's co-sponsors and Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee co-chairs Sen. Scott Grow and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, about concerns about the bill's potential impact on his office's budget. Idaho Reports obtained a copy of the letter.
The State Appellate Public Defender's Office handles cases post-conviction for appeals. Lehtinen estimated his office would receive, on average, two capital lewd conduct cases a year, in addition to the capital murder case appeals his office already handles.
'I estimate that once the new death penalty scheme fully ramps up, the SAPD would require at least $2,948,000 in additional ongoing funding – a 72.2% increase to the SAPD's current annual appropriation,' wrote Lehtinen in his March 18 letter. That number included 14 new employees, litigation expenses and conflict costs. Lehtinen noted it did not include one-time costs, such as computers for the employees, or paying Idaho State Bar dues.
'This increase in capital cases would require the SAPD to hire at least 14 additional full-time employees in its Capital Litigation Unit: four lead attorneys, four 'second chair' attorneys, two investigators, two mitigation specialists and two administrative assistants or paralegals,' Lehtinen wrote.
Fredericksen told Idaho Reports that because public defense is so reactive to what the prosecution does, he couldn't give a fiscal impact estimate. His office has begun accepting applications for attorneys who may have enough experience to become death penalty qualified.
But if half of the lewd conduct charges filed in 2024 involved children under age 12, he said, Idaho doesn't have enough public, private, and civil attorneys to handle that case load.
The Idaho Legislature approved an $83 million budget for Fredericksen's office for fiscal year 2026. About $32 million of that is an enhancement budget for needed personnel costs, institutional offices in Elmore, Shoshone, Jerome and Benewah counties and more funding for contract attorneys. The budget doesn't specifically single out allocations for more death penalty-qualified attorneys.
When the new law goes into effect on July 1, it will create a new crime called 'aggravated lewd conduct under 16' which creates a new mandatory minimum of 25 years for the crime of lewd conduct with a child ages 13 to 15. The option of pursuing the death penalty would be left to the individual county prosecutor in cases where the child is 12 or younger. The crime of lewd conduct with a child under 16 is already punishable by life in prison.
The bill outlines a series of 17 aggravating factors that make a suspect eligible for the death penalty, including the victim being kidnapped or trafficked, or the suspect engaging in the act three or more times.
If a jury, or the court if a jury is waived, finds two aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and if the death penalty is not sought, the court shall impose a life sentence with a minimum period of no less than 30 years in prison.
Public defenders who testified in committee took issue with some of the items listed as aggravating factors, including if the defendant was in 'a position of trust' over the victim because that could be applicable to many sexual assaults of children. Public defenders also objected to including 'force or coercion' as an aggravating factor, as children cannot legally consent, so every case could arguably be 'force or coercion.'
In committee, the Idaho Prosecutor's Association supported the list of aggravating circumstances, saying they were based off Florida and Tennessee's laws.
'I think it's fair to say that with the nature of the aggravating factors, a prosecutor could make a decision that just about every case would meet those aggravating factors,' Fredericksen said. 'Right or wrong, they could make the case to move forward with the aggravating factors under the statute.'
Idaho legislators passed this law knowing that in the 2008 decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for non-fatal sex crimes, even if the crime involved brutality and young children.
Still, Florida passed a similar law in 2023, but to date, no one has been sentenced to death for child sexual assault. Instead, prosecutors have reached plea agreements with lesser punishments than executions, such as life in prison.
Tennessee passed a law similar to Florida's in 2024, but it hasn't yet been used.
During the session, Skaug repeatedly called the Idaho bill a 'test case' as the makeup of SCOTUS has changed since 2008. He also believes prosecutors will only use the charge for 'the worst of the worst.'
Of the four justices who dissented in Kennedy v. Louisiana, three – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – are still on the bench. None of the five in the 2008 majority are currently serving.
Regardless of the current court makeup, if someone is sentenced to death under this new law, it will almost certainly end up challenged in court.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.