User:Kriidztofer/sandbox

In the United States, a public defender is an attorney-at-law appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender program is merely just one type of indigent legal defense offered in the United States.

Background and History
Prior to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, legal aid was only accessible by those who had the ability to pay. During this period of time, people who were not able to pay for an attorney usually did not have access to one. The Sixth Amendment changed this concept that only those who had money having the right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment reads:"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."One of the listed rights granted and guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel; the right for defendants, who are on trial for criminal charges, to have legal aid in federal courts. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is for criminal cases only; it is not for non-felony cases. Although the Sixth Amendment introduced the right to counsel in the United States, the Supreme Court would further interpret and expand on this right.

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
In 1931 in Scottsboro, Alabama nine black youths, the "Scottsboro Boys", were placed on trial after two young white women claimed they were raped by the young black men. The day of their trial, the "Scottsboro Boys" were not appointed counsel by the judge and were instead represented by two unqualified people: a real estate agent from Tennessee and an old attorney who did not practice law in many years. Both legal representatives of the "Scottsboro Boys" had very little information and knowledge about the situation but did not attempt to push back the trial. Every "Scottsboro Boy", except for one, was sentenced to death despite the fact the doctors who checked the two young women admitted that they could not find any proof of rape.

The case was appealed but reaffirmed by the State Supreme Court and then appealed again. The case eventually climbed to and caught the eyes and attention of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1932. In a vote from 7-2, the Supreme Court overruled the conviction of the "Scottsboro Boys", stating that trial denied the due process and the equal protection clauses granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the nine men by denying them the right to counsel granted by the Sixth Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Sutherland noted the dangers of charging innocent people if they lacked the right to counsel as he would argue in the written opinion of the Court:"Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."The Supreme Court also ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal and state governments are to give legal counsel for capital crimes, crimes that can result in the death penalty, if the defendant is unable to afford their own private attorneys. This ruling expanded the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and applied the rights of the Sixth Amendment to the states, not just the federal government, as well.

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
The Betts v. Brady case narrowed the interpretation and the understanding that came about from the Powell v. Alabama case. In 1941, a 43-year old man by the name of Betts was arrested for stealing in the state of Maryland. Betts requested for an attorney, as he lacked the means to do so himself, but his request was denied by the court on the grounds that appointments were only granted to those on trial for capital crimes forcing him to represent himself. Bett was found guilty but attempted to appeal, arguing that the courts refusal to give him an attorney violated rights granted to him in the Fifth and Sixth Amendment such as the right to counsel. He argued that the courts refusal to grant him an attorney was in direct violation to the Supreme Court's decision from Powell v. Alabama.

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 decision, supported Betts' conviction. Supreme Court Justice Roberts, the writer of the Supreme Court's opinion on this case, stated that the precedent set from Powell v. Alabama of appointing legal counsel was not set in stone due to the fact that there are different scenarios where something can appear to be unfair in one situation but not in another. He argued that in Powell v. Alabama, the legal counsel was necessary because the trial itself was prejudiced. Roberts also stated that the concept of appointing counsel was not required for every case by the states. The Court argued that the right to counsel was not one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ultimately, this ruling would allow the States freedom to decide when to grant the indigent defender legal counsel. The implications of the Supreme Court's decision of this case would last until the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
The case Gideon v. Wainwright was a landmark case that would set the precedent on how legal counsel would work in the United States. In 1961, a burglary occurred in a poolroom in Florida and a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested by the police on the basis of a eyewitness's testimony. Gideon requested for legal counsel to the courts as he was unable to afford a lawyer however, at the time, Florida only allowed appointed counsel for capital crimes, not misdimeanors like breaking and entering and thus his request was denied. Florida's system was brought about by the previous Supreme Court Case Betts v. Brady, which allowed states to decide on their own when to offer indigent defense. Gideon was forced to defend himself but despite his hard work, he ended up being sentenced to jail for five years.

Gideon petitioned the Supreme Court on the grounds that he was not provided counsel and thus was denied him of his rights granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and therefore, he was imprisoned on unconstitutional grounds. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the denial of Gideon's request for a lawyer was unconstitutional and that the Sixth Amendment grants the defendant the right to an attorney even if the defendant is unable to pay for one. The Courts ruled that states were required to provide lawyers on the grounds that having lawyers to defend defendants were a necessity. Justice Black, the writer of the Court's opinion, stated:"Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."Justice Black's opinion showed a similar argument that that of the Court's from Powell v. Alabama, the guiding hand of counsel can prevent an innocent man from being imprisoned falsely. From this point on, all defendants on trial for criminal charges were guaranteed the right to a lawyer, no matter what their financial situation looks like. The Court's decision in this case overturned the previous understanding of legal counsel set by the Court in ''Betts v. Brady. Gideon v. Wainwright'' would be the catalyst for the wave of change in criminal justice that the 1950s and 1960s would experience.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
The Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington changed the way people interpret the Sixth Amendment by stating that the legal counsel provided to defendants should be reasonably effective. Strickland was placed on trial for murder charges in the state of Florida and was sentenced to death. Strickland appealed to the Supreme Court justice on the grounds that his counsel did not fulfill his duty on grounds such as not seeking a psychatric exam despite the fact Strickland plead emotional issues. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that effective legal counsel is a right but in order to prove the counsel is ineffective, the defendant needs to prove (1) their lawyer's performance was below a certain standard and (2) there is a chance that if it was not for the ineffectiveness, a different result could have occured.

Birth of the Public Defender
Although there had been some provisions for legal counsel for the indigent population prior to Gideon, Gideon served as the catalyst for a wave of change. Following the landmark 1963 decision, the 1960s witnessed the creation of programs across the country to make this right to counsel available to most people charged with crimes who could not afford an attorney to represent them.

California's first female attorney, Clara Shortridge Foltz, came up with the idea of the public defender. Foltz was growing concerned with the prosecutors in court, feeling that they served themselves, and believed in the creation of a rival that would mirror the prosecutor, just as qualified but instead of searching for guilt, searching for innocence. Foltz was also inspired by the people she represented in court such as Charles Colby who lamented over spending all that he owned on ineffective legal counsel. She proposed this, at the time, radical idea of the public defender system at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair as well as wrote numerous law articles on the reasoning why the costs of the criminal defendant should be shouldered by the government. One memorable quote from her speech at the Chicago World fair was:"For the conviction of the accused every weapon is provided and used, even those poisoned by wrong and injustice. But what machinery is provided for the defense of the innocent? None, absolutely none."Despite the fact that provisions for indigent legal defense did exist before the creation of the public defender program, Foltz argued the lawyers appointed were unqualified in comparison to the public prosecutors. In fact, she believed that the public defender should be created as a mirror to the public prosecutor; she wished for the selection and the salary to be the same. Her goal of seeing this idea come to fruitation saw success when the state of California would see the first public defender office of the United States open in the city of Los Angeles in 1913. Following the creation of the Los Angeles Public Defender office, the public defender program and idea spread throughout the nation.

Alternate Indigent Defense Systems
The public defender system is not the only form of indigent defense program offered in the United States. Besides, the public defender system, there are two other main alternatives: assigned-counsel system and contract-service system. Assigned-counsel is where the court appoints a private lawyer to defend someone who cannot afford to pay. Contract-Service is where an attorney is contracted to work for a period of time. These three forms are usually mixed and matched together in different ways in different states. For instance, most states usually use both assigned-counsel and the public defender program side by side. In fact, assigned counsel is usually used when the public defender program is overexerted in the amount of cases they have to do or if there is a legal issue of conflict of interest in a case.

Controversy and Ethical Issues
The public defender office and position is not without controversy. The public defender position as well as the rights to counsel is reliant on the decisions of the Supreme Court. As Betts v. Brady and Gideon v. Wainwright demonstrated, when Supreme Court overturned their decision of the states having the ability to choose situations when to grant or not to grant legal counsel, the decisions of the Supreme Court can overturn previous notions of the Sixth Amendment. Controversy also arises from people questioning the essential nature of the public defender role and office as there are those who question why the government should fund and support the legal defense of those who they are putting on trial to begin with. In fact, this controversy dates back to the creation of the public defender program when the New York Daily Tribune found it laughable that the government was to both prosecute and defend a person.

The number of as well as the salary of public defenders can be controversial as well as has major issues detected as well. Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General in 2013, phrased the current issues of the public defender system as a state of crisis and saw the current system as a failure to uphold the Sixth Amendment as well as Gideon. The public defender, especially the State appointed ones, have to deal with numerous issues in regards to excessive caseloads and lower salaries. For one, a low pay can discourage or fail to attract the best legal talent or keep experience member at hand. A good example of such an issue is when Louisiana public defenders were so underfunded, had such a large shortage, and had a huge excessive workload that the office was forced to put defendants in need of a public defender on a waiting list. An ethical and unconsitutional question arises from people not being able to receive the rights granted to them in the Constitution under right to legal counsel. Excessive workload appears to be an issue as well. According to a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 73% of the county offices in the United States went over the recommended maximum limit of cases. In Missouri, a study reported that the state required 270 more public defenders just to represent the indigent at a barely acceptable manner. Controversies can also arise from the idea of how much public defenders should be paid as if they are paid too low, they are underfunded and overworked and struggle to keep and bring people, but paying too much to try to match private sectors is unreasonable as this funding has to come from somewhere, such as Louisiana using police tickets and fines to help fund their public defense system. If they are paid too much, the question arises, who loses out. Other than that, ethical issues and dilemma form as people question whether the defendant is receiving the effective counsel that Strickenland interpreted from the Sixth Amendment. In fact, the excessive caseloads for the public defenders results in many defendants calling their defender a "dump truck", complaining that they feel as if the defender is just trying to dump them rather than actually try to defend them. The complaints against public defenders has lead to distrust of the public defender system and the California Court of Appeals even describes how families are selling all they own in order to try to get a private attorney, something that Foltz has attempted to prevent when she came with the idea of the public defender program. Another issue that arises from the lower numbers of public defenders is that the government is forced to rely on alternatives to the public defender system such as private lawyers appointed by the courts. In federal courts, 75 percent of the defendants rely on appointed lawyers especially when the public defender offices have issues with conflict of interest which can be caused by public defender shortages. From studies such as the Rand study, the court appointed private lawyers usally result in higher prison rates as well as higher prison time compared to that of the public defenders. For instance, studies showed that court appointed lawyers had clients with imprisonment times 8 months longer, on average, to the clients who had public defenders. The controversy arises from results of Supreme Court Cases such as Strickenland v. Washington as some question if the legal counsel provided is effective as the Supreme Court argued effective counsel was guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The question also arises, in this scenario, if this is even ethical. Ethical issues in these terms have become so problematic that the United States Department of Justice was forced to research on constitutional violations in representation.

Controversy also exists over the idea of representing the guilty. Mayer Goldman, back in the heydays of the public defender program, questioned what should happen if the public defender represents a guilty defendant. In fact, Harvard Law School's Guide for Careers in Indigent Defense, emphasizes the importance of having to get over the emotion and frustration of having to defend the guilty. Issues over the feeling of defending the guilty is something that people view differently.