a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This week’s edition of Monday Musings is up. The featured PD is 123txpublicdefender123 (never let her live that down!), also known as the blogger of Injustice Anywhere. Check it out.

PD Stuff’s brand new feature called “Monday Musings” has its inaugural edition today. The featured PD is David Feige, author of Indefensible. He also authors a blog by the same name. Check it out; it’s a fun and interesting read.

I"m a little late with this story, but via Pdstuff comes the link to some good news.

Since 2003, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been pushing legislation that would grant student loan relief to public sector lawyers in the criminal justice system. With the Democrats in control of Congress, Durbin plans to reintroduce his bill early next year. Some hope it finally has a chance of passing.

To remedy the problem, Durbin is pushing the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act. If passed into law, the Justice Department would pay up to $10,000 a year of the law school loans of any prosecutor or public defender. To qualify, a lawyer would have to commit to three years of service. Loan assistance would be capped at $60,000 per lawyer and would apply only to loans made through federal programs.

This certainly is heartening for us and I sincerely hope that it passes. The NACDL has been advocating it for a while now.

After the annoying stories yesterday and earlier today, comes this feel good story (via ex-Txpd) of a pd’s victory in a trial. Here’s a bite:

At the revelation that this young man would not be serving his whole
life in prison, the attorney collapsed, face down, onto the table.
Openly weeping. Her client wrapped his arms around her shoulders,
weeping himself. The judge continued with the rest of the counts,
answering each charge with, "not guilty". He had been acquitted of all
six charges! The attorney and her client were wrapped, weeping, in each
others arms. He kept saying, "Thank God, thank you, thank god, thank
you".

I live for this.

A long time ago, I was engaged in a "blog-iscussion" about the meaning of  indigence and the guidelines for determining indigence. I remember it, because this morning I read this story out of North Carolina.

Apparently, in N.C., there are no specific guidelines for determining indigence (and access to PD services), other than saying "I am unable to afford an attorney".

For example, when Larry D. Lintner, 56, of Raleigh was charged with embezzling money from the chemical company BASF, he swore he was too poor to afford a lawyer. He has two cars worth $4,000, an $8,000 checking account balance, nearly $100,000 of equity in his $250,000 house and $60,000 in a retirement account.

Still, a district court judge agreed to appoint Durham’s public defender to represent Lintner.

The state of NC spent 85.5 million last year for indigent defense. The money covered about 270,000 cases. By contrast, in CT (with an established PD system and guidelines for indigency), the state spent 34 million. Interestingly, in NC, the pd’s office does not receive or review the affidavits filed by defendants claiming to be indigent. They might want to rethink that one. Here, the pd’s office conducts an indigency evaluation and if found indigent, they represent the individual. Perhaps taking people at their word leads to spending 50 million more per year.

For more on indigency and guidelines, click on "pd system" below.

of the ‘hood of public defenders is Woman of the Law! Congratulations on a profession well chosen. Go over there and wish her well.

A post at Prawfsblawg highlights an article in the Indiana Law Journal titled "The Invisible Pillar of Gideon", arguing that there should be a Constitutional floor for Indigency.

[This] piece illustrates the discrepancy among states in determining who is indigent for purposes of Gideon’s assurance of a right to counsel.  He observes that what counts as indigent in one state (e.g., Scott Peterson in CA) would not count as indigent in another (Larry McVay in South Carolina).  I would add that, in light of the various states that have fuzzy guideposts for determining indigency, the discrepancy exists not only across states but within states too regarding who is entitled to appointed counsel.

As to the solution to this problem, [the author] (whom I’ve not yet met) doubts Congress and the states could do something to establish the constitutional floor that Gideon is supposed to furnish on an equal basis; he therefore proposes that the Supreme Court adopt a framework that would "equalize the right to apponted counsel across the fifty states."  Specifically, the Court should adopt a rebuttable presumption that says: if you’re below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, you should get appointed counsel.  This use of flexible benchmarks is similar to the Court’s State Farm jurisprudence in punitive damages.

A few months ago, there was plenty of discussion on this matter of indigency here and on Mr. DA’s blog. The discussions centered around the meaning of indigence, who defines indigence and how. [I think Tom might've gotten involved too.]

To be honest, I didn’t read through the whole "constitutional floor" article. But Mr. DA made some of the very same points in his post:

The difference is not really all that significant. Look at that family of four with two kids under 18.The basic threshold figure is $19,157 (set aside for the moment the question whether this isbefore or after taxes) a range of 125% to 187.5% of that number is $23, 946 to $35, 919. Usingthe guidelines figure of $18, 850 the range is $23, 563 to $35,344.

Is this reasonable? And why do we have the multipliers? 125%, 187.5% — what’s that all about?Let’s look at that two adults, two kids under 18 number. $19,157. That’s not a lot of money for a family of four to live on. But consider - if both the adults are working full-time, at minimum wage jobs (currently that’s $5.15/hr) and put in a full 2080 hours a year, their gross income will be$21,242. Whoa! If we only used the threshold or guidelines numbers, these folks wouldn’t qualifyfor appointed counsel. And that’s just plain silly. But when we apply the 125% multiplier we find they do qualify. So if Dad has a couple of beers after work on Friday, and rolls through a stop sign on his way home, he’ll be eligible for appointed counsel to fight the drunk driving charge Officer Friendly dropped on him.

Which brings me back to the point I made then. Let the individual states decide what indigence is. Every state has different real estate values, standard of living costs. Let there be a basic guideline, something perhaps along on the lines of "If an individual makes $12,000 a year or less, then he/she will be declared "indigent" regardless of other economic factors. Then let the states decide if they want to up that figure for their residents.

As I argued back then (lamented is more like it), even with my salary, I probably couldn’t afford to hire private counsel, were I charged with a crime. However, I certainly would not qualify for the division’s services. So there is a gray area, but it’s impossible to lay down a fixed rule. Each state legislature knows it’s economy the best, knows the SOL best, knows median income levels the best. So if CT decides that all said and done, $18,000 a year is a good cutoff, then let it be so.

Incidentally, CT’s definition of indigency is outlined in C.G.S. 51-297. Cryptically, it states:

As used in this chapter "indigent defendant" means (1) a person who is formally charged with the commission of a crime punishable by imprisonment and who does not have the financial ability at the time of his request for representation to secure competent legal representation and to provide other necessary expenses of legal representation and (2) a child who has a right to counsel under the provisions of subsection (a) of section 46b-135 and who does not have the financial ability at the time of his request for representation to secure competent legal representation and to provide other necessary expenses of legal representation.

From my knowlege, the cutoff is based on the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Here is the latest chart for CT. [pdf]

So what am I trying to say? Nothing, really. Just that we need to take indigent defense far more seriously. There are plenty of people in the country that fall below these guidelines and attorneys are not being properly compensated or given enough incentives to make this a career. Unfortunately, the poor masses lose out.

In 1999, Javier Ovando, a former gang member, was convicted of assaulting two corrupt police officers. He was sentenced to 23 years. Two years into his sentence, however, it was discovered that the two officers had shot and paralyzed him and then planted a gun on him.

So what does he do? He sues his Public Defender and the County.

After the conviction was overturned in 1999, Ovando sued Deputy Public Defender Tamar Toister and Los Angeles County, claiming Toister knew Rampart officers had a pattern of falsifying and planting evidence. In May, Ovando was awarded $6.5 million in the case.

Judge Tricia Ann Bigelow on Monday threw out the 6.5 million award and also ordered a new trial, after finding juror misconduct. Juror Jennifer Salinas had said she had no knowledge of this scandal. Perhaps, but she neglected to mention that she starred in a movie about the scandal!

Bump and Update: Mark astutely points out this quote from the firm’s website:

Prior to joining Marquis & Aurbach, Ms. Kuzemka, practiced criminal defense law at the Clark County Public Defender’s Office.

Update: TxPD provides her insight.

So I thought I was learning something each time I stepped into a courtroom over the last few years. Standing in front of a judge, putting witnesses on the stand, cross-examining others, writing briefs, motions and memoranda surely have made me a better lawyer! After all, isn’t practical experience what it’s all about? Apparently, I’m failing horribly at achieving the standard of being a good lawyer: billing hours. Skelly is rightly skeptical. I’m a little more than skeptical. I’m incensed.

Let’s look at this quote from "the well tailored lawyer":

Law students also need to realize that there is a vast difference
between a starting job at the public defender’s office or district
attorney’s office, as compared to starting at his firm of choice. It
takes a thick skin and a strong constitution to work with hardened,
penniless criminals day in and day out at the public defender’s office.
At the district attorney’s office, you will at least be on the opposing
side of such individuals, but you must still interact with them, and
you seldom get the opportunity to handle a large, complex case. Some
law students are under the impression that they will gain valuable
trial experience as a public defender or a deputy district attorney,
enabling them to later land a good job with a law firm. While it is
true that they have gained valuable trial experience, a young attorney
who has worked for the government has learned nothing about dealing
with individual clients, quoting fees, keeping clients advised, and
grasping the many complex issues that are presented by business clients
on a day-to-day basis. And while it may also be true that government
attorneys learn to think on their feet (often opening a file for the
first time while they are in court standing in front of the judge),
this is not good training for handling complex business cases where
preparation is the number one priority. Just as important, a government
attorney has had no experience billing 40+ hours per week or even
keeping track of their time. Thus, working for the government right out
of law school often disqualifies young attorneys from ever landing a
job at a prestigious law firm.

I’ve highlighted some troublesome sentences in that passage. First off, and my pet peeve, is the use of the phrase "hardened, penniless criminals" and the word "them". As I’ve said time and again, "them" can just as easily be "us". Let’s stop this condescension and realize that each one of us, in our lifetimes, has done something that could very easily have made us into them. Anyone driven home after one or more drinks? Smoked pot? Shoplifted a candy bar? Thought so.

The writer is probably correct in stating that working for the state’s attorney’s office will not train a lawyer in dealing with clients and keeping them advised. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that prosecutors are unable to grasp complex issues (business or not), or are unable to prepare. Ask any prosecutor (or pd) who has tried a lengthy felony case. We all prepare. No one goes into trial just "winging it". That just shows either ignorance of the practice of criminal law or disdain for it.

The other notable thing is that while berating the value of the job of a state’s attorney, the writer does not make these allegations about a public defender - how could he? We spend a large portion of our time dealing with clients - visiting them, talking to them on the phone, writing to them, sitting next to them. All PD’s prepare (or should) their clients prior to trial, advise them on the best course of action (otherwise they go straight to habeasville) and constantly guide them. So we are teriffically prepared for "dealing with clients". We often try cases with little or no evidence, leaving the state to it’s burden. If that isn’t valuable trial experience, I don’t know what is.

Oh that’s right - I forgot to take the class or the seminar that teaches me how to bill.

As far as being disqualified from working at "biglaw", I don’t want it anyway. I’d rather worry about how I’m going to avoid the tricky evidentiary issue during direct tomorrow than worry about "making my billables".

Starting Tuesday, pd’s in St. Louis will not represent indigent defendants on misdemeanor dockets. Describing a system similar to Florida’s "meet, greet and plead", MO state pd system director, J. Marty Robinson, says:

many people were probably misled into thinking they had a
lawyer, but public defenders were simply "filling out the court’s
paperwork."

those defendants have a constitutional right to "meaningful
representation. It means an attorney that meets with me,
hears my problems, finds out what the case is against me. The attorney either presents my defense or knows enough about my situation to
negotiate the best plea agreement. But you can’t really do that unless
you know what evidence the state has.

State and local representatives of the public defender’s office say
they’re making the move because it’s unethical and unprofessional to
try to represent defendants with only minutes to familiarize themselves
with the cases.

The reaction is quite different from that in Florida. Judges have threatened to no longer allow public defenders to postpone trials, would go with
prosecutors’ recommended sentences over public defenders’
recommendations and would no longer reschedule hearings to avoid
conflicts with the public defenders’ schedules.

That seems to be the price to pay for providing effective representation.

UPDATE: The link has been fixed. Thanks to S.cotus.

David Feige reports that a bill to reform LA’s much criticized indigent defense system has moved to the "full" House (not sure what that means), despite opposition from district attorneys. The bill would expand the Indigent Defense Assistance Board from nine to
15 members, allowing one appointment each for the governor, House
speaker and Senate president, one each from the law school deans, and
one each from various legal and church groups.

I’m not quite sure that law school deans and church groups need to have any say in appointing the supervisory board, but anyway, it’s a step in the right direction.

More on the much needed reforms:

Specifically, it has been estimated that it would take $55 million to
properly fund the statewide indigent defense system. Currently, the
system in the state of Louisiana operates on a budget of about $32
million a year. A little over $9 million of that comes from the state
and is spread across the judicial districts. The remainder comes from
the individual districts, primarily from $35 traffic ticket fees, a
method of funding wholly dependent on the enforcement of traffic laws.

If you will remember, LA relies on traffic tickets to pay for indigent defense. Yep, that’s right.

David Feige reports that Florida’s Chief P.D. is seeking to end [registration might be required] the "meet, greet and plead" system, whereby defendants routinely plead guilty at their arraignment.

In January, [Chief P.D.] Finkelstein told his staff to contact
any defendants who haven’t gotten out of jail within 48 hours. He also
created an early representation unit, and staffed it with three lawyers
and four interviewers.

"In the past, we did nothing until the time of
arraignment, and that’s 4 1/2 to six weeks after arrest," Finkelstein
said. In that time, perishable evidence can be lost, witnesses can
disappear and lives can fall apart. "You can lose your job, your
apartment, even your family," he noted.

The second part of Finkelstein’s initiative
is to end the practice at arraignment of "meet, greet and plead."
Typically, those deals help defendants get out of jail immediately but
stain them with a felony conviction and set them up for consequences if
they have future encounters with law enforcement.

To those of us practising in the Northeast, this seems rather odd. Most clients are arraigned within 48 hours of arrest and meet with their attorneys soon thereafter. One would not dream of pleading a client guilty at arraignment (unless it involved something like community service - and even then…).

A brief history of "meet, greet and plead":

Pleas at arraignment began to occur about 20 years ago in Broward in
response to jail overcrowding and federal court mandates to reduce the
number of inmates, said Chief Assistant Broward Public Defender Bob
Wills. "What started as a system issue has snowballed into a case
management issue," he said. "It shouldn’t be that way."

But the desire of judges to move cases
expeditiously is now at odds with the Sixth Amendment right to the
effective assistance of counsel. The first rule of the American Bar
Association’s model rules of professional conduct says "competent
representation" requires "the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."

There is some reaction from Judges and prosecutors, but you’ll be surprised:

[O]ne Broward criminal court judge acknowledged that
judges are concerned about the new policy. "Judges may be upset that
their dockets will be clogged by cases that would otherwise be resolved
at arraignment," said the judge, who did not want to be identified.
"Everyone is concerned about their case numbers."

The judge also warned that the move could hurt
Finkelstein’s clients. "Prosecutors may say we aren’t offering pleas at
arraignment anymore," the judge said. "The people that would penalize
are the clients. The best plea you get is at arraignment."

The best plea you get is at arraignment? What? Is this how they’ve been representing clients for the past 20 years? This makes absolutely no sense. How can you get your best plea at arraignment, when you have no bargaining chips - no knowledge of the case whatsoever - in fact, I’d be willing to bet, with almost no contact with the client him/herself!

What do the prosecutors think?:

Broward County State Attorney Michael Satz is
backing Finkelstein. "We’re supportive of anything that makes the
criminal justice system better," said Satz spokesman Ron Ishoy. "The
new public defender has identified a problem on the defense side and
has set out to fix it. We’ll do our part to help make it work."

Aah! See, I told you. Well, we must applaud Finkelstein for taking the right step towards effective assistance of counsel. Were this CT, I’d be under a flood of habeas claims.

Mister D.A. has this excellent, excellent post on what a lawyer would normally cost and whether the average middle-class defendant could afford one. He goes into great depth constructing a hypothetical, with average salaries and lawyer’s fees:

Looking at it dispassionately, if Danny wants to go to trial, he
probably should not waive the probable cause hearing (who knows, he
might get lucky and the magistrate will ash can the case) and will
probably need two or three pre-trial motions to try and get rid of his
statements and limit the testimony of Bernard and any other witnesses
from the club. Figure pre-trial practice, including a half-day on the
PC hearing (not that it will take that long, but’s that how long you’ll
have to be in court, waiting) and another half-day (if you’re lucky) on
the motions, the time to prepare the motions, the time spent talking to
the prosecutor, the time spent reading police reports and witness
statements, client hand holding at $125 an hour, you’re likely looking
at $1,000-$1,500 just to get to the day before trial. And that’s if
you’re happy with the police investigation and the local courts’
dockets aren’t too messy.

As for the trial itself - many attorneys cap
their daily fees at some set multiple of their hourly rate. Let’s
assume Danny’s prospective attorneys all cap trial days at $600 a day
or any portion thereof. This is probably a three day trial from voir
dire to the return of the jury’s verdict. $1,800 bucks there. Let’s
call the attorney fees $3,000 at this point. That’ll probably cover any
post trial stuff if there is a conviction. Now, let’s take a wild guess
at filing fees (if you retain counsel, most places require the same
fees for court filings as in a civil case), transcripts of any
hearings, especially the PC hearing, copying costs, paralegal costs. .
. heck, let’s just call it another $1,000 and say $4,000 as a ballpark.

[Add another $1000 for a polygraph and w]e’re up to $5,000 without really trying. So that’s the retainer Danny has to come up with. $5,000. Can he do it?

He then analyzes standard middle-class incomes and cost of living and determines that

Danny and Gina do not have $5,000 to give an attorney. $5,000 is the
amount of money this couple would scrimp and save and sacrifice to
accumulate as a down payment on a house. Or to buy a decent used car.

This is where the idea that the State should shoulder some of the
burden of defending people charged with criminal offenses comes from.

A fascinating read and a great follow-up to the recent coversations regarding the right to appointed counsel and who should pay for indigent defense.

In the comments to this post, Tom McKenna submits that the Sixth Amendment does not require mandatory appointment of counsel for indigent defendants.

That "right" had to be invented by the Court by using that famous
refuge of activist judges, the 14th Amendment, which (unbeknownst to
its framers, who thought they were simply guaranteeing that whatever
procedures protected white citizens at law must also protect black
citizens) guarantees due process of law to state citizens. The 14th of
course has been used to "find" all kinds of hitherto unknown rights,
such as "privacy" (contraception/abortion) and sexual expression (sodomy
at least)

He then goes on to explain

the states can choose to vindicate this "right" by providing for
indigent defense in their own constitutions or statutes. It defies
common sense however, to suggest that the sixth amendment mandates
something that apparently no one (least of all its framers) imagined it
mandated until 1963.

The framers meant what they said and no
more… that you have a right to counsel and cannot be tried and
convicted if you want to have an attorney; the court cannot deny you
counsel. That is different than saying the court must provide you
counsel. Even the Supremes realized they could not twist the 6th
amendment to include an affirmative duty to provide counsel, so they
had to turn the last refuge of judicial scoundrels, "substantive due
process" under the 14th.

I am no Constitutional Law expert, so bear with me while I do an analysis of Gideon and the cases it relies on.

First, I think one must admit that the Constitution (via the 6th Amd.) does require appointment of counsel in Federal Court. This was held in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). The plain text also leads to this conclusion:

  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Mr. Justice Clark writes, concurring in Gideon,

That the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in "all
criminal prosecutions" is clear, both from the language of the
Amendment and from this Court’s interpretation. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458
(1938).

Having established that, let us turn to whether the 14th Amendment requires it. Obviously, there is no language in the 14th Amd. that says "the states shall provide counsel to all defendants in criminal prosecutions who cannot afford to hire their own". But to use that to state that the "right" (and I put it in quotes sarcastically) was invented might be incorrect. A plain reading of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that there are very few specifically enumerated rights:

No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So essentially, the 14th talks specifically about due process and equal protection. It also imposes these requirements on the various States. The Supreme Court initially considered this, not in ‘62 in Gideon, but in 42 in Betts v. Brady. The Court stated that,

while the Sixth Amendment laid down "no rule for
the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the constraint
laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so
fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of
law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment."

So it was certainly being considered. The Betts court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee
of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or, in the
words of that Court, "made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment." The Gideon court concluded

Plainly, had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an
indigent criminal defendant was "a fundamental right, essential to a
fair trial." it would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires
appointment of counsel in a state court, just as the Sixth Amendment
requires in a federal court.

So it wasn’t that this specific right wasn’t provided for in the 14th, but rather that this right wasn’t a "fundamental" right, rights which are provided for in the 14th. The Gideon court concluded it’s analysis by stating:

We accept Betts v. Brady’s assumption, based as it was on our prior
cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is "fundamental and
essential to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however,
in concluding that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is not
one of these fundamental rights.

In concluding this, the Court relied on Powell v. Alabama, decided 10 years before Betts.

Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of
money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime.
Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the
public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few
defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best
lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That
government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money
hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread
belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.

The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed
fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is
in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions
and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive
safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in
which every defendant stands equal before the law.

Knowing the jurisprudence of the Constitution, one cannot reasonably conclude that while it mandated certain protections be afforded citizens from Federal Governmental action, it affirmatively declined to extend those same protections against actions by an individual state.

I would love to hear your views on this topic, including things I might have missed.

Yes, I said I have nothing intelligent to contribute tonight, but I wanted to point this out. It looks like Mr. D.A. has awoken! In his usual descriptive, analytical style, he takes my post about the state of indigent defense systems and spins it into a larger discussion. He asks

So, in law speak, indigent defense is the defense of very/extremely
poor/needy people. Seems clear enough at first blush. But. . .

• What is ‘indigent?’ That is, how poor is very/extremely poor?
• Once we know that, how do we determine if a given defendant is, in fact, indigent?
• And who decides if a particular defendant is indigent?
• Who represents the indigent defendant? Obviously, an attorney, but which attorney?
• How
  does that attorney get compensated? Or do we impose the duty to
  represent indigent defendants on the members of the bar as a mandatory
  pro bono publico activity. Sort of an "in kind" element of their bar
  dues. Abraham Lincoln said an attorney’s time and advice are his stock
  in trade. Is it fair to take that time and advice without compensation?
  Is there a Fifth Amendment problem here?
• If we are going to pay attorneys to defend the indigent, how much are we going to pay them?
• And who, exactly, is ‘we’ in this context?

As a primer to this whole discussion, Mr. DA correctly points to Gideon v. Wainwright, which should be starting point for this conversation. I know some of Mr. DA’s question were rhetorical, but I’ll respond anyway.

Currently, the standard for indigence (atleast here in CT) is $250 per week for a single individual. (That’s $12,000 a year - if you make more than that - you don’t qualify.) The cutoff is usually loosely based on the Federal Poverty Level, which places the income for a single person family at $9,570. I guess one can make the argument that $12,000 is a completely unrealistic number. As explored in my post linked above, there is a large middle class that lives paycheck to paycheck. This middle class makes far more than $10-12,000, yet would be completely unable to retain private counsel. Perhaps the determination should be of take home income retained after making debt payments (credit cards, loans, car payments, etc..) This might provide a more realistic guideline for determining true indigency.

Who decides indigency? I would leave it up to the individual state system to analyze cost of living in that particular state and measure average incomes and then settling on a level that is reasonable. Whether a particular individual is indigent is, ofcourse, determined by investigation undertaken by the PD’s office.

The rest of Mr. DA’s questions are, I think, philosophical questions, so I’ll leave them alone. I will say this, however: As part of our profession, I think it is the responsibility of each attorney to provide representation to people who have no money. The defense of an individual’s liberty is, in my opinion, the greatest service that we can provide to the community at large. Prosecutors get paid by the state/federal government to prosecute those who pose a risk to society. It is only natural, if we are to maintain this system of checks and balances against the government’s power, that the same government provides representation to those who cannot afford it - if for nothing else, then to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are a large number of attorneys out there, such as myself, who love being public defenders - and in fact, would prefer it to being private attorneys.

Just think about this: criminal defendants are not "those" people. Tomorrow, it could be you. You could, finally, get pulled over for driving home intoxicated on a friday night. You could get arrested for that pot you smoke. You could even get arrested for that nailpolish you shoplifted. Wouldn’t you want an attorney then?