Interesting comment by Blair Paul: ENOUGH ALREADY. In 1942, or there abouts, my attorney father was sitting in the Federal court room in Juneau, AK, when an indigent accused was being arraigned on a capital case. Mr. Paul, the judge says, youre appointed to represent this man. No no thank you your honor. You did it. No defense budget, no compensation, no jury selection consultant, no nothing. If the man had been charged with a lesser offense, no appointment, no defense, no hope, innocent or guilty. That was the American indigent defense system in 1942. Noblesse Oblige. Four months later, the accused was convicted and sentenced to die. A year of appeals later, again at Dads expense, the defendant died of natural causes in prison. Dads nightmare was that someone died on his watch. He would have exhausted every avenue to save the mans life. That was not going to happen. When I was in law school in the late 60s, the fifth and sixth amendments right to counsel and due process of law were addressed by the Warren Court and given meaning. Public financed criminal defense began. But it was then pretty minimal. Public defenders with completely unacceptable case loads and rarely was there money for investigators or meaningful preparation, even in capital cases. Over the years, the budget for a true defense became a bigger and bigger deal. But . . . Liberal that I am, civil plaintiffs and criminal defense lawyer that I was, 5 years, $3.5 million, another $67,000 for a jury consultant and more all adds up to an absurdity. There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. The public is entitled to their day in court as much as the defendant. And the public is represented by the county, city, state or Federal prosecutor. I often get the feeling that the defenses motivation is to never get to trial and the prosecutors and courts are powerless to force them to trial. Why? Like many things in legal evolution, the solution to a real and serious problem is as bad or even worse than the original problem. I wonder how big a dent in our education funding system could be addressed by this misspent money? And, how many defendants wouldnt be defendants if we addressed their issues when they were 7 rather than 17 or 27? Just saying.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:33:29 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015