Comments on: The right of self-representation: More important because of us? http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/26/the-right-of-self-representation-more-important-because-of-us/ Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:13:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: S.cotus http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/26/the-right-of-self-representation-more-important-because-of-us/#comment-20024 S.cotus Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:26:34 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2008/03/26/the-right-of-self-representation-more-important-because-of-us/#comment-20024 Most of these people that propose that lawyers representing indigent defendants are incompetent don’t know what they are talking about. They are generally people with little actual experience that decide that they can write a paper based on some popular myths. They are worthless. Now, of course, not all criminal defense lawyers are created equally. There are lawyers with years of experience in one court. There are lawyers with years of experience in various courts trying one kind of case. There are appellate specialists. There are lawyers that are really good at negotiating pleas (negotiating a good plea in a complex case is very hard). Etc. etc. Not all public defender regimes are created equally, too. My preference is always for a large public defender agency, even if it means some bureaucracy. But that isn’t the only way to do things. Not all jurisdictions are the same. The amount of discovery available, and the law of severance, sentencing, evidence, etc. varies. And most of all, not all defendants are created equally. Believe it or not, some of them have better facts than others. Not all defendants have cases that are built on the testimony of a crackhead. Some of them come to lawyers with a prosecutor that has them on videotape committing the crime. Some of them come to lawyers with ambiguous evidence. Most of these nuances fly over the heads of such “studies.” I did want to point something out about self-representation. I don’t see the debate as being really about whether people can represent themselves. Instead, I see it as being whether competency standards should be higher or lower. Most of these people that propose that lawyers representing indigent defendants are incompetent don’t know what they are talking about. They are generally people with little actual experience that decide that they can write a paper based on some popular myths. They are worthless.

Now, of course, not all criminal defense lawyers are created equally. There are lawyers with years of experience in one court. There are lawyers with years of experience in various courts trying one kind of case. There are appellate specialists. There are lawyers that are really good at negotiating pleas (negotiating a good plea in a complex case is very hard). Etc. etc.

Not all public defender regimes are created equally, too. My preference is always for a large public defender agency, even if it means some bureaucracy. But that isn’t the only way to do things.

Not all jurisdictions are the same. The amount of discovery available, and the law of severance, sentencing, evidence, etc. varies.

And most of all, not all defendants are created equally. Believe it or not, some of them have better facts than others. Not all defendants have cases that are built on the testimony of a crackhead. Some of them come to lawyers with a prosecutor that has them on videotape committing the crime. Some of them come to lawyers with ambiguous evidence.

Most of these nuances fly over the heads of such “studies.”

I did want to point something out about self-representation. I don’t see the debate as being really about whether people can represent themselves. Instead, I see it as being whether competency standards should be higher or lower.

]]>