The right to a public defender being denied!

[FA_Q2]

I am looking for both a debate and clarification here because I can’t really believe what I read. A week ago I was glancing through the paper when an article caught my eye. It was claiming that, due to budget constraints, public defenders were turning clients away and instead providing them with a letter for the judge. The article goes into great detail about the public attorney’s office budget woes and case load but very little is actually said about the people that are turned away. I was appalled that this was even a possibility as I was under the impression that this is a right, not some privilege and that such a thing (not having a proper defense in a case) was outright illegal. The 6th is pretty damn clear; you have the right to counsel.

Now, because the article did not tell the full story (as news usually does because they really don’t care about facts) I want to withhold my judgment until I know what this ‘letter’ does and if a person that does not have counsel provided is simply acquitted or not. I was hoping one of the people on here that are better versed in this area might be able to shed some light and if such is not the case, how in the hell can that happen?

Sorry I don’t have a link atm. When I get the chance I will identify the newspaper/date/article that I am getting this from. I just don’t have it on me at this time.

 

[Sallow]

Well..one of the nice things about budget constraints is that alot of criminal may need to be cut loose.

Thanks Conservatives!

Way to save money.

 

[George Costanza]

Preserving the right to a lawyer for criminal defendants - KansasCity.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well..one of the nice things about budget constraints is that alot of criminal may need to be cut loose.

Thanks Conservatives!

Way to save money.

Works for me.

In fact, I think the state should not be able to spend more money to prosecute someone than a defendant has available to defend himself from the charges.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well..one of the nice things about budget constraints is that alot of criminal may need to be cut loose.

Thanks Conservatives!

Way to save money.

Lets just keep spending trillions we don't have, great plan swallow.

 

[FA_Q2]

Preserving the right to a lawyer for criminal defendants - KansasCity.com

Thanks for the cite. This only worries me more.

Can you comment on what happens to those that go to trial without a lawyer? I can’t believe that they just don’t get representation. I don’t know because I am not a lawyer.

Well..one of the nice things about budget constraints is that alot of criminal may need to be cut loose.

Thanks Conservatives!

Way to save money.

Works for me.

In fact, I think the state should not be able to spend more money to prosecute someone than a defendant has available to defend himself from the charges.

While I am not exactly on board with the equal amount of cash idea, I also have absolutely no problem with letting people go free if the state cannot supply a public defender AND give that defender the time required to defend the accused. What we are doing right now is a direct violation to the constitution and absolutely deplorable. If the state does not have the funds for PD’s then I guess they are going to have to close down traffic court and let all the petty criminals off the hook entirely. That or actually find the money to, you know, UPHOLD THE FUCKING LAS STARTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

What an idea.

PS. I am still surprised I have not received any real comments on this yet though. No one has anything to say about the fact that people are not getting the constitutionally protected right to a lawyer? Hell, I expected George would at least have something to say on the matter

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Preserving the right to a lawyer for criminal defendants - KansasCity.com

Thanks for the cite. This only worries me more.

Can you comment on what happens to those that go to trial without a lawyer? I can’t believe that they just don’t get representation. I don’t know because I am not a lawyer.

Well..one of the nice things about budget constraints is that alot of criminal may need to be cut loose.

Thanks Conservatives!

Way to save money.

Works for me.

In fact, I think the state should not be able to spend more money to prosecute someone than a defendant has available to defend himself from the charges.

While I am not exactly on board with the equal amount of cash idea, I also have absolutely no problem with letting people go free if the state cannot supply a public defender AND give that defender the time required to defend the accused. What we are doing right now is a direct violation to the constitution and absolutely deplorable. If the state does not have the funds for PD’s then I guess they are going to have to close down traffic court and let all the petty criminals off the hook entirely. That or actually find the money to, you know, UPHOLD THE FUCKING LAS STARTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

What an idea.

PS. I am still surprised I have not received any real comments on this yet though. No one has anything to say about the fact that people are not getting the constitutionally protected right to a lawyer? Hell, I expected George would at least have something to say on the matter

Most people really don't care. I suspect George could go on for hours about how busy he is, and how little money he has available to defend his clients.

I can't speak about how it works where you live, but I can speak toward how they do thinks in that I am familiar with. If a defendant shows up in court with a note saying that the public defender does not have the time to represent him they will get a lawyer from a pool that have signed up to represent indigent clients. These are, usually, new lawyers who are barely scraping by, which doesn't always result in quality lawyers.

 

[whitehall]

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in cases where the penalty might be more than a year in prison. Local jurisdiction might have afforded a lawyer at taxpayer expense in the past for violations, traffic infractions and the like but the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a public defender in frivolous or minor cases.

 

[FA_Q2]

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in cases where the penalty might be more than a year in prison. Local jurisdiction might have afforded a lawyer at taxpayer expense in the past for violations, traffic infractions and the like but the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a public defender in frivolous or minor cases.

That is an interesting read of the constitution. I don’t read that at ALL. Here is the actual text:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

How is that unclear? ALL is a pretty definitive term for anything that is considered a criminal offense. Is there something else that defines a year as the demarcation line? As far as I can tell, you are absolutely incorrect that the right does not extend to ALL criminal cases.

I can see where traffic violations are not counted as they are not ‘criminal’ per say though I actually disagree with that concept. I can just acknowledge that my disagreement is not shared by the system as a whole.