I am looking for both a debate and clarification here because I cant 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 attorneys 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 dont 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 dont have a link atm. When I get the chance I will identify the newspaper/date/article that I am getting this from. I just dont have it on me at this time.
Now, because the article did not tell the full story (as news usually does because they really dont 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 dont have a link atm. When I get the chance I will identify the newspaper/date/article that I am getting this from. I just dont have it on me at this time.