How much am I allowed to spend on a public defender?
This question is based on the James “Whitey” Bulger murder trial in Boston. At a recent function, another person remarked that his sister was on the defense team for Mr. Bulger. What was unbelievable was the Mr. Bulger’s “team” was being provided at the taxpayer expense.
If it’s true … I can understand that he gets a free defender, but what makes him authorized to be assigned a team? If they were still alive, could I get F.Lee Bailey, Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Darrow, and Johnny Cochoran to represent me at the taxpayer expense?
If you’re using a public defender, you don’t get to choose who it is. You can take whoever the state assigns you for free, or you can go out and spend your own money to get the best lawyer you can afford.
Yes, sometimes a case requires more than one lawyer. The assigned public defender (or agency) figures that out and requests authorization. The Federal Defender agency already has a staff of good trial lawyers and assigns what they need to for any given case. The defendant has no say in the matter.
I hope I am not derailing this, but who decides and how do they decide? $2000 in the bank? $50,000 in the bank? Calculation by net worth (which may mean you may have to sell your house to pay the bloodsucking lawyer)?
Each jurisdiction has it’s own standards. You don’t have to be dirt poor. You go in for an interview (or they come to you if you’re in custody) and ask you some questions. In reality it’s pretty self selective. If you have enough money to hire a lawyer, you hire one. I never saw anyone denied a public defender who said they needed one.
When I was a public defender I had some clients who were firmly middle class. I think they might have had to pay a small charge. They were grateful to have someone work on their behalf, and didn’t consider me a bloodsucker.
My understanding is that the income guidelines to qualify for a piblic defender is 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
But it varies from state to state and regardless of your income (within reason) you cannot show up in court without an attorney claiming that you can’t afford one.
My apologies to all the lawyers. It was a moment of weakness.
I was not referring to the public defenders. I was imagining a situation where the state decides that Mr. X is “not poor enough” to get a public defender. Because of this, he has to drain what savings he has and sell his house to defend himself from the state. He may walk away with his freedom, but little else. It sounds like from your answer that this is not common.
It’s not common that the state forces this. People, however, do drain their savings for private attorneys because they’d rather do that than have a public defender (often a mistake. Public Defenders are often better than “low cost” private attorneys).
Most people accused of crime do not have significant assets. In Seattle, where I worked, easily over 90% of the cases were handled by Public Defenders. Exceptions for DUI and serious drug charges.
That is true in the Ohio courts in which I’ve practiced, as well.
Quite so. Your average public defender is in trial all the time, knows how to woo a jury, and has typically handled a wide variety of criminal cases. Most of them can run rings around your average highflying private counsel who, despite his plush office, army of minions and massive ego, will probably have tried many fewer cases.
CASE law is clear, a defendant is NOT entitled to his choice.
NOW, if the PD is defacto not representing him properly, for the sake of argument here, they can request a new one, but that is still not a guarantee they will get one, still the Constitution mandates a fair trial.
Even with an admission of my obvious bias… this is true much more often than not.
The main downside with a PD is not a lack of experience or talent. It’s his caseload, and the lack of resources he can devote to your cause: hiring experts, sending an investigator to track down alibi witnesses or evidence, spending hours prepping you and other witnesses for trial. That’s a luxury that a fully-funded defense team will have.
But let’s face it: most criminal trials don’t hinge on expert testimony, or require extraordinary effort to locate reclusive witnesses.
In the majority of cases, in my view, you’re better served with a PD than with an ordinary private attorney. As the complexity of the case grows, the equation begins to change.
Heck, around here appointed attorneys are the same guys that you get if you hire someone. It can get downright comical: “I thought I could hire Jimmy, but I can’t afford him.” “Well, then, I’ll appoint you the next attorney on the appointment list, which is…Jimmy.”