John Adams once said, while justifying his legal defense of British soldiers following the Boston Massacre, that “counsel ought to be the very last thing that an accused person should want in a free country.” The United States does not, and never has, truly upheld this ideal of providing adequate defense to all accused of a crime. Prior to 1963 and the Supreme Court decision of Gideon v. Wainwright, individuals unable to afford lawyers were not required to be provided one in state criminal cases.
Despite Gideon, some states have left individuals on their own for weeks or even months without being assigned a lawyer, due to the massive disparity between the demand and availability of public defense lawyers. This clear violation of the 6th amendment right to counsel is largely a result of the inadequate funding of public defense offices. To remedy this, federal funding needs to be given to states to help supplement local public defense offices.
Depending on location, a first year public defender can make as little as about $45,000 annually, while at a large law firm they could make nearly $200,000. Often with massive debts after years of schooling, new lawyers are naturally drawn away from taking public defense jobs. This leads to a shortage of public defenders, and means that those who do take these jobs are hugely overworked. The situation is so dire in Fresno that misdemeanor public defense attorneys deal with about 1,462 cases a year - 3.65 times the recommended yearly caseload of 400. In New Orleans, public defenders have an average of a mere seven minutes to spend per case. With the sheer number of clients assigned to each public defender, and limited time to deal with each, it is near impossible for those unable to pay for a private lawyer to receive adequate representation in court.
Public defense is essentially an unfunded federal mandate. Since Gideon, states have been required to provide lawyers to those who need them for criminal cases, but receive no federal funding to do so. Currently, 27 states pay entirely for public defenders, but others require local municipalities to cover the cost at least partially. State and local governments have other funding priorities, and public defense is politically unpopular. Despite those charged with a crime being presumed innocent until proven guilty, the public tends to view court-appointed lawyers as something that only benefits criminals and otherwise takes away resources that could best be used elsewhere. As such, public defense tends to be woefully underfunded, with no political consequences.
This philosophy, that public defense only benefits criminals, is simply untrue. A Pew Research Center study states that 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions are obtained through plea deals. Regardless of innocence, people charged with a crime may be encouraged to just go along with the suggestion of overworked public defenders and prosecutors hoping to minimize the number of cases that go to trial and accept a plea deal, lest they risk being given a larger sentence in court.
Competent public defense leads to fewer people being incarcerated, or keeping people in prison for less time, which reduces the strain on prisons and the cost to taxpayers to run them. It also helps to reduce the racial and class inequalities seen in prisons. Poor people and people of color disproportionately use public defenders and are disproportionately incarcerated when compared to their richer, whiter peers. With a lawyer able to give each case the time it requires, or even just some amount of time closer to that ideal, this inequality would likely decrease.
It’s clear we need to provide federal funding for public defenders. With more funding, salaries can be increased, making working and remaining in public defense over private practices a more viable option for young lawyers. Within public defense offices, additional lawyers can be hired, reducing the burden on each individual one. More time can be dedicated to each case, and John Adams’ belief that all accused should have access to adequate counsel could finally be realized.
It’s not a matter of giving breaks to “criminals.” It’s a matter of upholding our constitutional rights to due process and counsel in court, regardless of income. Federal funding for public defense isn’t a revolutionary idea, but it’s one that would work.
References
ACLU Sues Over Public Defender Shortage and Resulting Wait List In New
Orleans. American Civil Liberties Union. (2016, January 15). Retrieved February
6, 2022, from https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-over-public-
defender-shortage-and-resulting-wait-list-new-orleans
Gramlich, J. (2019, June 11). Only 2% of Federal Criminal Defendants Go To Trial,
and Most Who Do Are Found Guilty. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
February 7, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-
2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-
guilty/
Jackson-Gleich, G., & Bertram, W. (2021, July 27). Nine Ways That States Can
Provide Better Public Defense. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved February 7,
2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/07/27/public-defenders/
Perez, M. (2021, October 17). Low Pay a Deterrent to Would-Be Public Defenders.
Law360. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from
https://www.law360.com/articles/1430492/low-pay-a-deterrent-to-would-be-
public-defenders
Peterson, F. (2018, December 3). Black Lives and the Boston Massacre. The
American Scholar. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from
https://theamericanscholar.org/black-lives-and-the-boston-massacre/
Comments