In the US you are entitled to a lawyer when you have to go to court accused of a crime.
In Chicago some judges are refusing public defenders to people if they manage to post a bond to stay out of jail till the case is finished. The rationale of the judges being if you can afford to post bond you can afford to hire your own lawyer.
My question for GQ (meaning just looking for the law on this) is how is the line drawn by the courts to decide if you are eligible for a public defender?
Reading the linked article, it discusses work arounds to this issue the courts are using. They sound kind of shady and corrupt, but the main thing is, if the judge tries to hold a trial and you’ve got no attorney, and he cannot produce evidence that you actually can afford one, that case won’t survive appeal.
I mean, not that it would help you much if you got unconstitutionally convicted, held in prison for several years while appealing, and eventually released. In most cases you would just be out the years of your life lost, all the mental and physical damage from prison, and lost income…
IIRC, eligibility is usually decided AFTER the case. If it turns out you weren’t eligible, you are billed for the defenders services. Of course, if you ARE able to afford your own attorney and are reasonably smart, you’ll opt for one of your own.
SamuelA is right about the appeal thing, though. Denying proper representation is a pretty clear violation of due process. It might even be one of those things where you can immediately appeal that single issue (eligibility for a public defender) to a higher court before the trial goes any further. However, navigating THAT mess would require a good lawyer. Thankfully, there are non-profits out there that will back you in this sort of thing, assuming you can’t find lawyer willing to do it for the fame.
In my state, at the initial appearance the defendant fills out a financial affidavit under oath. There is an income formula (tied to family size) that the judge uses to determine if the defendant is eligible.
The practical issue here is that the judge can make all the determinations he likes. It doesn’t change the fact that if on the day of the trial, the defendant hasn’t been able to secure the services of an attorney, the judge has a problem. Even the most unfair kangaroo court has to make the appearance of going through the motions.
I always thought even if you were Warren Buffet if you wanted a PD you’d get one.
If you can afford a good attorney then it is in your interest to pay one but if you just choose to not do that seems to me the state has to give you one. It’s in the constitution. What am I missing here?
The Constitution says you have a right to be represented by an attorney in a criminal prosecution. It doesn’t say you have a right to a free attorney. What’s the difference, you say? There are any number of situations where you don’t have a right to an attorney at all. For example, your child’s school does not have to allow you to bring an attorney to a parent-teacher conference. However, court decisions have held that the Sixth Amendment requires that those who cannot afford to hire an attorney in a criminal prosecution must be provided one at government expense. It was not until 1963 that a decision required counsel to be appointed for all indigent felony defendants and it was extended sometime later to those facing imprisonment on misdemeanor cases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk