Sunday, May 27, 2018

"Week 4: Obtaining Criminal Defense Counsel 90 90 unread replies. 97 97 replies. Slick has just been charged and indicted on two counts of burglary. Since Slick has been declared indigent, the judge ponders her options for providing Slick legal counsel. What are the judge’s options? State them and explain which one you would have chosen as the judge" (DeVry, 2018).

"Week 4: Obtaining Criminal Defense Counsel

90 90 unread replies. 97 97 replies.
Slick has just been charged and indicted on two counts of burglary. Since Slick has been declared indigent, the judge ponders her options for providing Slick legal counsel. What are the judge’s options? State them and explain which one you would have chosen as the judge" (DeVry, 2018). 
 

  • Any person appearing in court either through a pro bono advocate or appearing pro se, i.e. appearing in court representing oneself without an attorney for the reason that they cannot afford to appoint a lawyer, may make a motion in court to be determined that such a person is indigent for costs. The applicant furnishes certain financial details for the court's determination of his financial status. Once the court determines the applicants financial status, the person may or may not be declared indigent. Once declared indigent, the legally declared fee for the court services and process are waived for the litigant.
    For example, Fla. Stat. ' 27.52 (5): Florida Statute Section 27.52 details on the determination of indigent status of litigants and on who is eligible to be declared indigent for costs.
    (5) INDIGENT FOR COSTS. --A person who is eligible to be represented by a public defender under s. 27.51 but who is represented by private counsel not appointed by the court for a reasonable fee as approved by the court, on a pro bono basis, or who is proceeding pro se, may move the court for a determination that he or she is indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of due process services, as prescribed by ss. 29.006 and 29.007, funded by the state.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Jason, you are spot on!  Once a defendant makes the request and fills out the proper paperwork requesting a court-appointed attorney, how do the courts verify the validity of the information provided by the defendant?  
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • In some states, the court verify indigent requests by looking at the defendant’s income and expenses. The court will look at things like if the defendant is already receiving public benefits or is on some welfare program such as food stamps or housing assistance. I think most defendants who request an attorney genuinely cannot afford one because there is so much at stake in criminal trials. Public defenders do not represent a defendant as good as their private lawyer. I do not think that the defendant would risk spending life behind bars or receiving the death penalty just to save a few dollars.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Pretrial Services Division is part of the Los Angeles County Probation Department’s Field Services, Supervisorial District 3 Bureau.  Since 1963, Pretrial Services has been at the forefront in providing crucial information to those public entities concerned with community safety (i.e. law enforcement, the courts, Probation) on matters of detention, incarceration, and alternative sentencing. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • It good to know their help that we are giving a public defender lawyer that free of cost to try to help us with the process.
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Professor,
    The Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) case produced an important due process right in which indigent (an individual that cannot afford nor are they able to obtain legal counsel) suspects with the right to have counsel appointed for them (Meyer & Grant, 2003).  The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Sixth Amendment’s right to assistance of counsel in state trials.  This means that Slick cannot afford legal representation in court and it is up to the judge to appoint one for him.  In terms of Federal courts, legal representations and/or counsels consist of a federal public defender, private defense organizations, or a private lawyer who is qualified to represent a criminal defendant in court.
    I will continue this discussion in another post explaining which option I would choose for the defendant.

    Steven
    Works Cited:
    Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning Solutions.
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
    Steven, good points.  Gideon V. Wainwright is a landmark case.  This case set the path for people to have representation.  
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Professor,

    It's a relief that individuals have representation now thanks to that case.  Many individuals are not aware of their rights let alone how the justice system works.
    According to our course text, when it comes to defendants having the money and resources to keep a private attorney, criminal cases seem to be the exception (Meyer & Grant, 2003).  As we have already discussed, the defendant is indigent (cannot afford nor has the resources to obtain an attorney) so the court must appoint one for him.  There are two types of counsel that are provided by the state for defendants who are declared indigent:
    Assigned Counsel: Court appoints a private attorney from a list (they are paid a flat fee for their work and have private clients)
    Public Defender: Attorney who works FOR the state (no clients) (Meyer & Grant, 2003)
    The major difference between these two are their experience, caseload, and organizational constraints they may have (Meyer & Grant, 2003).  Public defenders are usually new attorneys who are trying to gain experience and they have large caseloads so they are not able to spend as much time with each client.  Assigned Counsels usually have more experience and more time to spend with the client.  Therefore, I would appoint an assigned counsel member to represent the client (Slick) because they would be able to work with him more and they have more experience.

    Steven
    Works Cited:
    Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning Solutions.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Steven, you are correct.  It is a relief.  I firmly believe we have a right to legal representation when we could be faced with jail or prison.  I could not imagine living in a country that would not provide such service.  
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Having a public defender for those you can't afford an attorney is great. If the representation is so bad at times the its as though the client is representing themselves.  Some of these offenders aren't giving a fair chance for the ones who are first offenders. Depending on the crime they committed the public defender usually don't fight for them. They'll have them plead guilty or take a plea deal. Now the offender has gotten more time then needed. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Ramona,

    I agree with you.  Especially when the defendant (convicted of criminal charges) is assigned a public defender that does not have the time to really investigate their case.  Like you mentioned, they dont have a fighting chance.  Most of them have to appeal or spend time fighting the sentence while in prison before the seek justice.  At times, court hearings wont be for months because there isn't a public defender available.  So unless the defendant is bailed out (in most cases the defendant cannot afford bail and assuming a bail is set - more serious crimes may not), they spend that time in prison waiting for hearing. 
    The Innocence Project (also mentioned in our course text) has a website that talks about those wrongly convicted or mistreated.  You will see tons of articles in regards to innocent people who were convicted, their stories, and how the justice system failed them.  Without a proper defense attorney, what chance to many of these individuals stand?  Especially if they do not understand their rights, understand the constitution, previous cases (landmark cases), or the justice system..
    https://www.innocenceproject.org/

    Steven
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Steven, even though people are told their rights while they are being mirandized, people will still not understand the events that are occurring and will choose to be questioned without an attorney, and end up incriminating themselves. I remember a case that I had several years ago, that a man had been accused of sexual assault on his adopted daughter; the man had been charged with this because his daughter that he and his wife adopted from Honduras decided that at 15 years old she wanted to quit school, move out with a man that was 22 years old. When the man found this out, he punished her, told her she was only allowed to school and home, the girl thought that the rules in the United States were like the rules in Honduras, where she could tell the police he touched her and they would allow her to go live where ever she wanted. The man had been arrested and 150,000. dollars had been set as his bail, because the officer told him that if her said he had done what they were accusing him of he could go home, and after 15 hours of questioning he gave in believing that he would be able to go home, but instead he was taken to the jail. The adopted daughter ended up recanting her story and the charges has been dropped but at that point it was too late. This incident cost him his wife, his job, and his savings.   
      Reply Reply to Comment
      Show more
      1 1
    • I also know that as a public defender, they are not always the first to know what is happening with their client because the client does not necessarily give their counsel the most up-to-date information and therefore counsel cannot represent their client.  If the client wants fair representation, then they must inform their attorney of updates and changes
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • Dawn, that is with most offenders dealing with their attorney.  I have witnessed it many times in my 25 plus years of service.  
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
    • Most public offenders are already given a handle a high number of cases and clients their decisionmaking process is vulnerable to unconscious bias. A defense attorney may put in harder work for one client than they would for many reason, the csae its self, not knowing enought about the case or even their race. Public defense attornies are not immune from stereotypes and perception which influence the decision-making process that can definitely impact the outcome of the case.   
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Ramona, it the public defender isn't "fighting" for their client, can't they be held accountable for their actions?  Is it possible to file a complaint with the state bar that certifies attorneys and provided a level of standards they must uphold?
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Yes you can file a complaint  legal malpractice if you can prove the attorney breached their duty by being negligent, made a mistake or did not do what they were contracted to do.  
      Reply Reply to Comment
      • Very truth most of the lawyer their just are waiting to get pay their money without fighting the system.  
        Reply Reply to Comment
  • Steven,
    Great post. The case you mentioned is indeed the case that set the path for indigent defendants to get representation in court. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • You are spot on. If a person is going to be tried for a crime they have the right to counsel. The Gideon v. Wainwright case made us realize that not everyone can fully afford a lawyer so we need to have State and District Attorneys available to represent them in trial. A person can represent themselves but it is not recommended unless you are a lawyer yourself.  
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • In some of our children services cases if the parents do not have legal counsel before the disposition she will ask for a continuance and set it out for 2-4 weeks so counsel will be there.  It is always nice as that way there appears to be better control and things don't get out-of-hand when parents try and represent themselves.
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Great post Steven! I’d personally choose a private defender because they’ll have more time and resources to help the defendant.
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • In my opinion, under the constitution, a person who is accused and found guilty if a crime for which he or she could be imprisoned and who cant afford to hire a lawyer may have a lawyer appointing to be his or her representative at no cost.
    I also think that many people who are in court sessions, have the right to get the help from any defender so they have a support in case they're being found guilty and need the help in proving to the judge. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Gissell,
      this is very true! Great post! They are provided with either a public lawyer, a private attorney, or a court appointed attorney. I’d choose the private attorney since it is the cheapest and most valuable attorney that can present their case. 
      Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
    • The defendant will either represent themselves or have a court appointed defense attorney. The judge will determine whether the defendant can afford a defense attorney, based on an application and financial information given to the court by the defendant. When the defendant is found to be indigent the judge can then decide to give them a court appointed defense attorney or have them represent themselves.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Jay, good points and that is correct.  The accused is responsible for asking the court for the attorney and completing the financial statement.  The courts use a formula to make the assessment.  
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Under the Constitution, a person who is accused of a crime for which he or she could be imprisoned and who can't afford to hire a lawyer may have a lawyer appointed to represent him or her at no cost. 
    In the federal courts, these legal counsels are usually 
    •federal public defenders, who are full-time federal employees; 
    •members of private defense organizations; or 
    •private lawyers who meet certain standards and are found to be qualified to represent criminal defendants. 
     If the court finds a person is an indigent, the court must appoint a public defender or other attorneys to represent them. This constitutional right of counsel for the indigent was determined by Gideon v. Wainright in 1963.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Sandra, what are some of the factors that are taken into consideration when determining is someone is eligible for a court-appointed attorney?  
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • The right to an attorney in criminal proceedings is enshrined within the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To determine whether you qualify based on income level, you may have to gather financial documents and prove to the judge that you lack the funds for a private lawyer. However, some courts may take you at your word (for example, homeless individuals lacking such documentation). Counties may determine eligibility for a public defender in a number of different ways, but your ability to afford a lawyer typically is based on your income and expenses. Some judges may ask you to get estimates from as many as three private attorneys before approving the assignment of a public defender.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases have secured the right to counsel for defendants facing incarceration.
      “Each state has rules for determining how to qualify for court-appointed counsel. These rules often have some flexibility to account for the seriousness of the alleged crime (Links to an external site.) or the probable length of the trial. So, even if you make a decent wage and could hire a private attorney to work on a short case, a judge may determine that you qualify for a court-appointed lawyer if the charges against you are more serious or if it appears that your trial may take some time.
      Lastly, if you earn income, but it's not high enough to hire a private attorney and not low enough to qualify you for a court-appointed lawyer, the judge may provide you with "partial indigency." Under this procedure, you're represented by court-appointed counsel, but you're also required to reimburse the state for a portion of your costs of representation.”

      https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-legal-help/how-to-obtain-a-court-appointed-defense-lawyer.html (Links to an external site.)
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Those who cant afford a private lawyer are giving public lawyer who will not fight for you like a private lawyer will. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
  • Well professor, there are a few things that could happen; but if I were the judge my decision would be to have the state provide him with an attorney, at no cost, as stated in the Miranda Rights "You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you". These rights are read to every detainee upon their arrest, this will result in a public defender or a pool attorney. The constitution was made so that everyone is treated equally and fairly. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • The Sixth amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel at all significant stages of a criminal proceeding. This right is so important that there is an associated right given to people who are unable to pay for legal assistance to have counsel appointed and paid for by the government. The criminal justice system and all states have procedures for appointing counsel for indigent defendants. The judge will appoint an attorney, that attorney will be paid by the governments expense. They almost always appoint attorneys practically in every case in which a jail sentence is a possibility no matter how long the sentence is. They will appoint an attorney typically on the defendants first court appearance. There are two types of counsel you can get which are public defender and an assigned counsel. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • The judge can provide an assigned counsel/private attorney or a public defender. According to Grant and Meyer, the assigned counsel is a private attorney who is selected from a list of lawyers and have private and assigned clients. Whereas, public defenders work for the state and have no private clients (Grant & Meyer, 2003 pg. 153). If I was the judge, I would choose a private attorney for the defendant. Public defenders are known to have heavy case loads which means that they cannot devote a significant amount of their time to a specific case. Even though private attorney is paid a flat fee for their work, most of the time they are available because their caseload is lesser. Private attorneys not only represent the defendant more adequately than public defenders, they are more experienced than most public defenders.
     Meyer J.F. & Grant D.R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Reply Reply to Comment
    Kisanna, I agree about the public defender. Their work load can becoming so depending and they have so many clients the offender will end up having  inadequate representations. It been seen so many times or the public defender tells them to just take a plea deal or plead guilty because they really haven't looked at the facts. A private attorney would be nice. I look at it as it the tax payers will have to pay the cost for the lawyer. How many offender are you willing to pay for.
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • I agree with you Ramona,
    I mean the private attorney would be nice. Only if people in slicks situation had the luxury of a private defender, I think they'd had a more reliable dependent and a fair shot at the criminal justice system. Just imagine being a public defender and dealing with loads of people very similar to Slick, half the time they don't even bother fighting as hard for someone as a private defender would.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Romana it is funny that you mention that; not all clients get adequate representation. The county that I work in, the public defenders are called public pretenders. The reason they call them that is because with the amount of defendants that they have to represent, it is impossible for the public defenders to give the proper amount of attention it may need. Which can affect the defendant’s defense.
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Kisanna, good points and you are correct with your assessment of attorneys.  Many people argue they do not get the same level of representation from public defenders.  However, public defenders, as well as private attorneys, have a duty to provide a certain level of representation for their client.  Could it be possible for a case to be turned over if a public defender didn't provide an adequate representation?  
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Yes Professor,
    The case could be thrown out if a public defender did not provide adequate representation. However, the defendant must prove that the public defender's representation was poor. The defendant can prove this by identifying errors the public defender made such as failing to investigate the case, refusing to object to damaging statements made by the prosecutor or the public defender simply did not cross examine witnesses. Since the state provide public defenders for indigent defendants, they must ensure that the defendant's right to receive a fair trial as stated in the Sixth Amendment rights of the United States Constitution is not violated.
    Edited by Kisanna Millington on May 22 at 3:40pm
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Kisanna you are spot on with this I see this a lot here in los angels in and around the downtown area
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • If a defendant's lawyer is ineffective at trial and on direct appeal, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial has been violated. In analyzing claims that a defendant's lawyer was ineffective, the principal goal is to determine whether the lawyer's conduct so undermined the functioning of the judicial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Proving this requires two steps:
    1)The defendant must show that his own lawyer's job performance was deficient. The defendant must prove that his counsel made errors so serious that the lawyer did not function as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.
    2)The defendant must show that the deficient performance unfairly prejudiced the defense. The defendant must show that his lawyer's errors were so serious as to wholly deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
    Reply Reply to Comment
        • Shawn, good points and on appeal is where the issues about discussed.  We do have a right to a fair trial and I believe poor representation violates that right. 
          Reply Reply to Comment
    • After the defendant has been declared indigent, the judge can either prove him with assigned council or a public defender. Assigned council is a private attorney that also takes on some indigent clients. A public defender is employed by the state and they only take on indigent clients. As a judge, I would choose assigned council as often as possible, and only assign a public defender if assigned council is not available. I would make this decision because public defenders are usually burdened with an excessive number of caseloads. The funds allocated for public defenders is usually spread thin, and there are times when the state runs out of money to pay them. With limited funds available for public defenders, they also lack the resources they need in order to efficiently perform their jobs. They cannot afford to pay investigators to gather evidence for their case, and they cannot pay expert witnesses that can analyze evidence on their behalf. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • Although, we disagree on whether the judge should choose a public defender or assigned counsel, you bring up a good point on the funds available to the public defender. I didn't even think about the money the state has to pay the public defenders. I think that it is ridiculous if the state runs out of money do pay them.
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • Billie, good points and I agree.  Not all jurisdictions have public defenders.  for example, In my district, the local attorneys sign up for court-appointed work.  Often times, you can get one of the higher dollar attorneys from a court-appointed list.  
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • I think that unless a public defender is over worked then they would be able to adequately represent a defendant. I think that sometimes they could be overworked and not able to defend a client to the best of their ability but I think that happens as seldom as possible. I think the only difference between a public defender and an assigned council is the route they decided to go after law school. They all had to be approved by the law board, the criteria to pass the board doesn't change if you are going to be a public defender or a corporate lawyer. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
      • Meghan, I agree that there isn't much of a difference between the two. They both go through law school, they both study the same kind of law, and they both have to pass the same exam in order to practice law. To me the biggest difference is experience. I know it isn't always true, but when I think public defender, I always think of someone fresh out of law school that is trying to earn their place at a private law firm. I think of assigned council as someone that is well established and has more experience working defense cases. I know there are public defenders that choose that path for their entire career, and there are private attorneys that obtained the job right out of law school. I also think the funds they have access to makes a big difference on who to choose also. While the courts only pay assigned council a flat rate to represent indigent clients, many of those attorneys still have the funds from their law firm in order to pay for everything they need for a case, whereas a public defender typically only has the money provided to them by the state which can cause them to have more limited resources. I do agree that either attorney would work to the best of their ability to defend their client, no matter the circumstances. 
        Reply Reply to Comment
    •    Once the defendant has declared indigent, the judge has the choice to provide them with a council and or public defender. The council is an attorney that helps clients who can not afford a lawyer. A public defender is an public lawyer from the state to assist the client who has declared indigent. If i was the judge i would chose the public defender. They have more experience in daily cases and will be able to help the client with more resources given to them. The fact of the matter is lawyers are not cheap, the average salary would most likely not be able to afford a lawyer, unless they have saved a lot of money. Public defender would help the majority of people in this world if they find themselves in a time of need.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree with you. I think the public defender is a good option because they have the most experience. They have cases every day that they attend to. I think lawyers charge a ridiculous amount of money. If the average person gets caught in a criminal act then they will get into debt from having to pay lawyers to get out of the situation. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • I think that public defenders do have more experience with more types of cases, but I don't feel that they overall have more experience than assigned council. Many public defenders are fresh out of law school and are trying to make a name for themselves in the criminal justice system, and do not have as much experience in the courtroom. I think they would be better for an indigent client, because since they are trying to make a name for themselves they may work much harder to win their case. However, since a public defender is paid by the state, they often do not have the money for the resources they need to help a case. If state is low on funds, a public defender may not be able to hire expert witnesses to testify during trial, or they may not be able to afford to have evidence analyzed in a way they feel will be beneficial for their case. They are often so overloaded with cases, that even though they have many cases they work and have experience with, they may be too overwhelmed with the number of cases assigned to them. If they have too many cases, they may not focus as closely on their cases as they should. I agree that the average person would go into debt trying to afford an attorney, but in this case it is not an issue. Since the defendant has been declared indigent, it has been determined that they cannot afford an attorney. While assigned council is a private lawyer that most people pay for, the ones that are assigned by the courts are usually taking on those cases pro bono, which means they are representing the defendant at no charge (although the courts are typically paying them a flat rate for taking on pro bono cases). In this scenario, money is not an issue since the defendant has been declared indigent already. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
      • I do agree with you Citori,
        In this aspect I agree with you. They are pretty pricey. I feel in the aspect in experience is true. If they tackled so many different cases some of them become the same type of cases they have encountered in their experience, so I mean with that experience under their belt they should know the outcome and direction to get and go with a case. 
        Reply Reply to Comment
    • The sixth amendment says that we all have the right to counsel. This means even when we cannot afford one, one will be appointed to us at no cost. This is a public defender. There are also private lawyers who can qualify to represent criminal defenders. If I were the judge I would just appoint a public defender to Slick. I think giving Slick the public defender would be the easiest thing to do. If the public defender did not do his job correctly the case can be thrown out which makes it so public defenders work as hard as they need to so the case will not get thrown out.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree. Our amendments are to be respected and it's our right as people to have these amendments to protect us from unlawful power. I agree. I also chose the public defender,the question one must ask themselves is "which is better for the overall outcome of the case"?
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • helo Citori and Michel
      I also agree with what the two of you are saying our amendments are an important necessity in the justice system they are a crucial part of it. moreover, I also age that the best course of action that the judge can take is making sure to appoint anyone who is standing trial a public defender 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • I think public defenders get a bad rap. I think people look down on public defenders and the public thinks that they aren't as qualified because they are public defenders. I think a public defender could defend him just as well. I don't know that a counsel could do much more than a public defender with Lawbreaker making a deal to testify against Slick. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • The judge has already been declared as an indigent person. He now has to fill all the paperwork to get an appointed attorney. Slick can receive counsel from the state or could look for an attorney to do the work pro bono. Slick must first file the following documents no Ore tenus motion, clerks application, indigent for cost affidavit. Then counsel must serve a copy of the written motion along with the affidavits upon JAC prior to the court declaring the client indigent. Lastly once the court has declared slick indigent for cost, and privately retained counsel must submit documents as well.  This was made a constitutional right when a prisoner wrote a prominent attorney in Washington named  Abe Fortas, He later became the Associate Justice to the Supreme Court(Hill, Hill).
    Hill, G., & Hill, K. (n.d.). Legal Dictionary - Law.com. Retrieved from https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=944
    Edited by Dallas Alexander on May 23 at 1:08am
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree. Which one did you chose or prefer the public defender or the assigned counsel?
    When you declare indigent, you have the choice of two options to chose from in order to assist you in your case.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Hi Michael,
    Which would I choose? If we pan out our options a public defender or assigned counsel, a public defender has experience. With having experience, I feel this gives a public defender a great experience. This gives them a outlook on cases and theories on outcomes on different types of cases. As for a assigned counsel, I feel they would work much harder at your case and possibly have the same amount of experience. I feel that public defenders always have a work load and might night be as flawless with your case, which leads me to go with a assigned counsel. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
        • Jaleka,
          I think that an assigned counsel would have more than just your case at a time since they are assigned other case along with that one case. They would be experienced yes, but have to juggle many cases and could lose focus of your case for a case that might be a better win for them. 
          Reply Reply to Comment
    • Once it is determined that the defendant is indigent the judge has a couple of options to choose from in order to get representation for the defendant. The first option is to appoint a private attorney who also takes on indigent clients. The second option is to provide a public defender. Of these two options the best one may be to provide a private attorney when possible. The reason for this is because a public defender is usually swamped with other clients that they represent at any given time. This could make it so that the defendant does not get the best defense possible for his case.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Amber, I chose the same option that you did. I also picked assigned council because of the caseloads that public defenders typically have. Assigned council does not have the same problem since they are private attorneys. They are taking on cases pro bono so they get to set the number of cases they accept, while a public defender has to take on as many cases as they are assigned. I do not feel that it makes a public defender unable to do their job, I think it simply puts too much pressure on them, and may cause them to not put in as much effort as they would if they had a smaller caseload. I chose assigned council for the benefit of the defendant and for the sake of the public defender. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree with you that just because a public defender has a lot of cases that they process it doesn't mean that they can't do their job effectively. But it does put a huge amount of pressure on them to know exactly what their defense if for all of their cases and could cause them to simply miss something that could make or break their case. Where assigned council can choose how many cases they want to do pro bono making it easier for them to understand all the facts of their cases.
    Reply Reply to Comment
        • I think being a public defender would be a much more difficult job. I imagine it could be quite difficult to keep up with multiple cases at once and to keep the facts of each case separate and correct. I think you made a great point about missing something during a case that could effect the outcome of the case. Being overworked and staring at case after case can become mentally exhausting and after so much our brains seem to sort of shut down to new information. I know when I'm working on a project or studying for an exam, after too long I just can't seem to absorb anymore information and have to take a break for a while. Public defenders are on time constraints when they have a lot of cases and they may not be able to take a break to regroup mentally so I can see them missing something that may be important in the case. I can't say something like that happening is necessarily their fault (they didn't overlook something on purpose) but it is something that happens when you become overworked or spread too thin. 
          Reply Reply to Comment
    • If I were the judge in this case, I would choose to assign private counsel over public defender.  Pubic defenders do have a heavier work load and there are many times the PD does not have opportunities to meet with clients until minutes before the hearing (I see this on a daily basis).  Since Slick is being charged w/2 counts of burglary, representation is crucial. 
    We know that Slick is guaranteed counsel through his 6th amendment right.  Also the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, where due process rights imposed no matter if defendant could afford or not.  All court have public defenders whether through state or federal courts.  Private attorneys also do some pro-bono cases such as public defender cases, and of course any defendant can choose their own attorney.  
    Reply Reply to Comment
  • Good Evening Dawn,
    I completely agree with you regarding the judge assigning Slick, with a private counsel. Public defenders are faced with plenty of work, and since he is facing two counts of burglary, a private counsel is bet suitable for Slick. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Dawn,
      I choose the same option as you where if I was the judge I would assign private counsel over a public defender in this case. The biggest reason is because of the case loads that public defenders typically have. They could have several cases that they are trying to defend at any given time. This could cause them to miss some important information that could help their client's defense. I do not believe it is because they re incompetent but just overloaded with cases.
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • All defendants, indigent included, have the right to legal counsel as a result of the Gideon v. Wainwright case in 1963. The judge can either provide Slick with a public defender or with an assigned counsel. It would be beneficial for the judge to assign a private attorney in Slick's case because public defenders already have an overwhelming number of caseloads. However, neither a public defender or assigned counsel have the resources, or financial incentive to provide efficient support to defendants.
    Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree that counsel provided cant do their best job defending their clients because of the caseload.  I don't see how a trial would be fair if counsel is so overwhelmed where its impossible to provide enough attention to each case they have.  If the public defenders' staff become even more overwhelmed in the future that would greatly affect a defendants case.  Its as if counsel is a check in the box and already places defendants at a disadvantage. 
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
      • Hi Tyler,
        I also do not feel the defendants receive fair representation due to the number of caseloads the public defenders are responsible for, as well as the lack of resources. According to (Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R., 2003), not only does the lack of resources extends to the private attorneys who work as assigned counsel as well, but public defenders and assigned counsel "have fewer financial incentives to devote extra time to complex cases because they are not compensated for additional effort" (p. 154). While assigned counsel may have more time to devote to a case such as Slick's, they may not want to due to the lack of resources so either way Slick and defendants alike may not receive complete advocacy.
        Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
        Reply Reply to Comment
  • well from my understanding no matter what the circumstances may be, even if a judge does find someone indigent they still have the right to counsel. of course, I have never been in a position such as the judges and unfortunately I dont wish to be, that kind of responsibility takes an amazing person to take on. however, if I was in that position I would follow the book because I believe that the worst mistake that can go on in any courtroom is one that results because of a technicality. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Judges must appoint an attorney for the defendant if he/she can not afford one.  Finacial records may be requested by the judge to make this decision.  The Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright unanimous decision ensures that defendants who may face incarceration have the right to counsel.  Defendants who are indigent and face fines may also get those removed based on financial hardship and the chances of recidivism.  Fines and other fees can make it more difficult for the convicted to adjust back into society.
    https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/are-you-entitled-to-a-court-appointed-attorney.html
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Did you find anything on attorneys that are with a law firm who do pro bono work is able to serve as that person who is indigent? Me personally I don't think I would trust a caseworker provided by the state as they have so many other cases. I would try to find outside help of lawyers who are trying to do community work. I also imagine that if you committed something serious and clearly are guilty that they wouldn't take that case.
      Reply Reply to Comment
  • When someone is described as indigent, they are considered unable to pay the fees required to hire a defense lawyer. If a person requires a defense lawyer but does not have the funds to pay for one on their own, one is hired for them. This would be considered an indigent defense. 
    Gideon was charged with breaking and entering. He had the intention to commit a misdemeanor, which made his crime felonious, under the Florida law. He had requested that he be provided legal counsel because he could not afford it himself. The judge denied his request because at that time, under Florida law, legal counsel was only provided to those being charged with a capital crime.
    The case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) was the first case that shed light on the indigent defense. Gideon filed a petition to the Florida Supreme Court but was denied. He next filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, who agreed to hear his case. The court decided to overrule a previous ruling, Betty v. Brady, that stated that it was not a violation of the 14th amendment to deny counsel to indigent defenders. The new ruling determined that anyone without counsel, while in court, is not guaranteed a fair trial.
    Because the above case was overruled, indigent defense services became available to everyone who cannot afford a defense counsel on their own.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • The judges options are to appoint a private court attorney or a public defender. Assigned private attorneys are paid a flat fee and they have regular clients and assigned clients. Public defenders are paid by the state and have assigned clients. I would not choose a public defender because they are overworked and would probably rather work towards getting the case closed instead of having the client's best interest at heart. I would get a private attorney because they can devote more time and resources. Also, when you are being paid you do a job better than if you are basically doing it for free or for a cheap price. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Hi Ayana,
    I agree, public defenders are overworked and rather close their cases this is why there are numerous cases which end with plea bargains as opposed to going to trial. When (Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R., 2003) compares privately hired attorneys (not assigned counsel) to public defenders we learn "earlier research on non-capital cases showed that public defenders are more likely to plea bargain and more likely to lose cases and that their clients are more likely to get longer sentences" (p. 156). While defendants have right to counsel they don't necessarily receive the most efficient counsel.
    Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Edited by Victoria Levinson on May 25 at 5:06pm
    Reply Reply to Comment
    I agree that the counsel provided is bare minimum most of the time.  Public defenders will meet with their clients a few minutes before talking to the judge.  Its difficult for the attorney to provide an adequate defense or know the story on the side of the defendant when everything is rushed between the client and public defender.   I wonder if all clients of the public defender were to have enough money to provide a private attorney would have reduced sentences or be cleared of all charges.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Hi Tyler,
      I think if many of the defendants who don't have the financial means to hire a private attorney would have reduced sentences or be cleared of charges if they were able to hire one. While even defendants have the right to counsel I feel they did the crime so this is the consequence (as far as less effective counsel). However, I do feel for those who are innocent defendants who cannot afford to hire a private attorney and still do not receive fair and effective counsel.
      Reply Reply to Comment
  • Ayana,
    I totally agree with you, I wouldn't use a public defender because in deed they are over worked and I don't think they are going to put in enough work on a case.
    Reply Reply to Comment (2 likes)
    • Public defenders are underpaid, but I think a lot of times public defenders are newer and need the experience from cases to get a good rap going. Without prior case wins public defenders will never get the chance to become private attorneys. 
      Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)

    • If the defendant were to get a lawyer instead it would cost money in which if all evidence are against him and loses it could mean more years behind bars.
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
    • I don't think the defendant would necessarily face more time behind bars. But having a bad public defender could mean that the defendant will. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • There are two types of legal counsel Private counsel or public defender, the answer is simple, right? Not really, some people can't afford private counsel, therefore the expense is one of the cons. The public defender is freely appointed to you, which is a pro because everyone can afford free. One pro to private counsel is that you get to choose who represents you, their time is now your time and they will find the resources to defend you successfully. Where as this is a con for public defenders. Public defenders don't have much time, they have a heavy case load and aren't really equipped to defend you really well. 
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • I agree,
      my family had to deal with this deciding to get a lawyer or go with the public defender. Waiting in the court hearings I would see how many case our public defender was working on and it was kind of scary. Only because she had so many and how can she focus on us our case with millions of other cases. Then the last minute we had to go to court just to get a new public defender because she couldn't take us anymore. So in my eye it is better to just save money and get lawyer. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    •  the the defendant can not afford a lawyer to represent him or her, they will be assigned an attorney for them to represent them in which the attorney job is to protects their right.
    Reply Reply to Comment
    • Stephanie,
      I agree, I think that this is one of the greatest things we have, it would suck to have to fight for yourself by yourself especially when you don't know your rights all the way or fully understand them. Thank god for the bill of rights. With out them we seriously would be screw and I believe we would have more innocent people behind bars. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
  • Wrap-up
    Good job this week.  As we discussed, the Judge had a few options in Slick's case.  Offenders that have been declared indigent are entitled to have representation, if he chose to.  Indigent defense is vital to our mission to show justice is bling and allowing those who cannot otherwise afford defending themselves. 

    Reply Reply to Comment
    • If a defendant’s lawyer is ineffective at trial and on direct appeal, the defendant’s sixth amendment right to a fair trial has been violated. However, the defendant has to show that his own lawyer’s job performance was deficient. There has to be proof in order to prove that the lawyer didn’t function as the counsel guaranteed. The defendant can not afford a lawyer to represent them, what will happen is they are going to get assigned to an attorney, where as the attorney is there to defend his or her rights. In my opinion, I personally don’t think that a public defender is the same as any other defender. A public defender might not put in so much effort as a legal assistance defender.  
    Reply Reply to Comment
    Good Afternoon Gissell,
    I agree if the defendants lawyer is ineffective they can cause the case to spiral downward against his direction. Public defenders will do what they need to do for an individual but may not put in all their efforts if the evidence is lacking, or proving his case is well deserved. 
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
      • Steven I agree with you but in this day and age it is all about money. If someone hires a lawyer and that lawyer thinks that they can win that case, if they know that money is coming their way, they will do everything in their power to win. As for a public defender, I may be wrong but I thought that they were usually trying to make a name for themselves to become a known lawyer which pays alot more. 
        Reply Reply to Comment
  • Those that are accused for a crime will have the protection of the sixth amendment appointed to them where they will received a public defendant lawyer if the person is indigent by the judge view. They will go thought a process before received free help as if the person cannot afford a private lawyer. 
    Reply Reply to Comment

    •                If Slick have been declared indigent meaning he is to poor to afford a lawyer, then that would mean slick could be provided an attorney to represent them. If Slick were to plea guilty then it would be best than going an all out fight in which all evidence show he is guilty of his crime.
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
    • Slick in this situation seemed poor about affording a lawyer, however, in this situation he should have the right for an attorney to be his defendant. Even though he was found guilty and they found evidence, he should still have the opportunity to have a defendant. 
      Reply Reply to Comment
    • Hello Class and Michael,
    this is Rachel. As in the forwarding post, my wishes are with you
    to complete your assignment tasks, errands and prove that you are the best
    as well as the greatest in all that you do. Good luck this upcoming week as well.
    Congratulations!

    Sincerely,

    Rachel Lynne Os. Sakhi
    Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)