Have you priced attorney's lately? Unless you have wads of cash sitting around, you will have to sell or refinance something to pay the bill. An acquaintance of mine spent more than $19,000 (10 years ago) to be acquitted of a felony charge at trial.

That was 10 years ago. It was a non-violent, non-drug related charge with two co-defendants. The lawyer was local so he didn't pay windshield time, either.

How much would that be today?

How do you expect indigent people to pay for that?

So what would be the incentive for the public defender to work for an acquittal for their clients instead of throwing their cases? The government paycheck for acquittal would never equal or exceed the payment they'd bill and maybe collect from the convict.

No, no, no. Defender gets paid by the government. Government takes it out of the convict via either cash or free labor.

-Mark

BINGO!

I love that every legislative session they start by funding things like bikepaths and monkey cages and fountains. Then at the end of the session when we find out there isn't enough money left, it's "you better pay more or we'll cut funding for roads, police and education!!". Bull turds, learn to prioritize.

The problem is, they have. They prioritize to get us to bend over, again and again.

thing is, we ARE paying for it...through our tax dollars

Seven thoughts on this topic thread:

1. You should never have to face a criminal charge made by the government without a good lawyer to defend you. It will still be David vs Goliath, but at least you'll have a sling-shot.

2. The lawyers I know who are Public Defenders are mostly great lawyers; good defense lawyers.

3. The problem is lack of funding. Not enough Public Defenders; with far too many clients.

4. This is the fault of the legislature, the news media, and us - as the body politic; since prosecutors are far better funded.

5. The Scales of Justice are imbalanced, with more funding for government prosecution than for defense. Fairness would require at least equal funding.

6. The problem with the first OJ case was not that he got off because he could afford a good legal defense. The problem it reveals is that the criminal justice system allowed perjury and false, manufactured evidence for years. Better legal defense funding would have prevented that better, cleaned it up sooner. The LA Police "Ramparts Scandal" (e.g., "Training Day") began to unfold as a result of the first OJ case. We need better funding of Public Defense.

7. On an individual level, a person should be better off hiring a good private criminal defnese lawyer - not because Public Defenders are bad lawyers; but because you can pay a private lawyer for their time. Time worked is the key to winning.

Although I agree with #1-3 and #5, I cannot fully agree with #4, #6, and I disagree with #7.

A person is not always better off hiring a private criminal attorney. Time worked is not the only key to winning -- lack of facts and lack of evidence is the main key to an acquittal -- which is not "winning" -- it is simply justice working the way it's meant to if the facts/evidence are not there to support the charge. That thing called "reasonable doubt".

Also, and a BIG one for #7 -- I don't remember seeing in the Rules of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer can choose how much time to put in on a case they have agreed to take, PD or private. The rules don't segregate private pay vs. public pay. If it does, I guess I missed it. Looks like I may have some reading to do..............................

I work with some very fine PDs and would engage their services in a heart beat if ever needed. And, if it ever came to the point where I qualified for a PD, I would feel very confident knowing that these PDs abide by their code of ethics and would put whatever time they needed into the case to do everything they could to gain the acquittal for me. Just because a sign on the door says "attorney at law" and their hourly rate is $200-500 and they charge a big retainer, doesn't mean they are worth the amount they charge or "better" than the PD down the street making far less than that. A few bad apples in every basket have ruined the characterizations for a lot of PDs and private attorneys alike.

I possibly misconstrued what you meant by #7 -- I may have read too much into it.

I'll get off my soap box now....

So their code of ethics gives them mystical powers to work 27 hours a day?

A public defender's time is finite, and often spread too thin, across too many cases. It is often simply not possible, given the laws of the universe, to give each case as much time as it needs. It sucks, but imagining it's not true only makes it worse.

White we're at it, there are some other public services that are spread too thin: beat cops, investigators, prosecutors, judges and jail/prison cells.

As the Cash for Clunkers program has vividly illustrated, anytime the government gives something away for free, demand will rise above the supply.

Well, the govenment arrests people for free, they can give them free lawyers too. Now that were is the car business too, I suppose we have sell the People's cars too. When business is slow, we need special promotions

I agree that ANY lawyer's time is finite -- only 24 hrs a day. A PDs code of ethics is the same as a private attorney's ethics...no magical wand to make a 27 hour day, and I did not stated that PDs have more hours in a day than private attorneys. So I'm under no false impressions about the PD problem.

I do agree that PDs are spread thin. However, the OP stated that people are better off hiring a private attorney because time = win. I disagree with that statement because, whether anyone likes it or not, PDs are under the same ethical constraints as private attorneys. Unfortunately, PDs get the shaft because the system is overloaded with people qualifying for PDs and the legislature continues to plow ahead with cuts and budget shortfalls and this particular public service has seen a big cut in #s. I would be hard pressed to find a PD that disregards their ethical code simply because they don't have time to abide by it. They all (the ones I know) abide by it and strive to give every client what is needed for their particular case. However, just like there is a difference in pay between private and PD, there is a difference in the amount of time cases require -- and that is determined by the charges brought, among other factors. As an example -- a no proof of insurance case requires much less time than a criminal vehicular homicide.

I think a more accurate statement regarding this would be private attorneys have the right to monitor their case load much better than PDs because PDs aren't given a choice as to what cases they can or cannot accept. Hence, a private attorney may have *more* time to put in on any given case, whether it is needed or not. However, when considering the choice between a PD and private attorney (assuming you have outside resources, other than your own assets, to hire a private attorney should you choose to forego your right to a PD), do not discount the PD just because they come with a *discounted* price...more $$$$$ does not equal better quality services.

That was the point of the post -- and as I said before, maybe I read too much into the OP post...I took the post to mean that PDs were of a poorer quality than private attorneys -- a misnomer I have heard too often over the course of several years.

I also agree that there are other public services that are stretched thin as well -- and your list exemplifies some of them. It is now mandatory that all licensed attorneys pay an additional $100 each year for licensing in order to fund the PD budget shortfall. Who's next on that list to fund public programs? Police, firemen, doctors?

In short Andrew, I agree with you about the hours and being stretched thin for PDs. And I don't foresee a solution coming to the problem in the near future....

It's not disregard -- sometimes they just don't have a choice.



Exactly. So even if a PD's ethics are stellar, it might be impossible for her to give "whatever time [is] needed into the case" for the number of cases she is assigned.

If a PD is assigned 10 cases a week, he can't give an average case more than 12 hours (and probably not that if he wants to survive).

A private attorney can average 100 hours (or 500 hours) per case, if his clients will pay for that, and the case warrants the time.