Law Commons^™

Understanding The Crisis: The Evolution Of Indigent Defense In Oregon, Molly Pettit

University Honors Theses

On any given day in Oregon, hundreds of people charged with a crime do not have an attorney to represent them. Many of these people are in custody, and some face charges as serious as murder. How did our public defense system reach the point of crisis? What can be done about it? This paper provides a general overview of the right to counsel nationally before narrowing the focus to the state of Oregon. Using scholarly articles, historical documents, footnotes, meeting transcripts, and interviews, I explore the beginnings of court-appointed counsel in Oregon, and document how it has grown and …

Judges For Sale: The Effect Of Campaign Contributions On State Criminal Courts, Arturo Romero Yáñez, Neel U. Sukhatme

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Do campaign contributions impact democratic processes? Using donation data from Texas, we show that criminal defense attorneys who contribute to a district judge’s electoral campaign are preferentially assigned by that judge to indigent defense cases, i.e., public contracts in which the state pays private attorneys to represent poor defendants.

We estimate that attorney donors receive twice as many cases as non-donors during the month of their campaign contribution. Nearly two-thirds of this increase is explained by the contribution itself, with the remainder attributable to shared preferences within attorney-judge pairs, such as those based on professional, ideological, political, or personal ties. …

Expanded Criminal Defense Lawyering, Jenny Roberts, Ronald Wright

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This review collects and critiques the academic literature on criminal defense lawyering, with an emphasis on empirical work. Research on criminal defense attorneys in the United States has traditionally emphasized scarcity of resources: too many people facing criminal charges who are “too poor to pay” for counsel and not enough funding to pay for the constitutionally mandated lawyers. Scholars have focused on the capacity of different delivery systems, such as public defender offices, to change the ultimate outcomes in criminal cases within their tight budgetary constraints. Over the decades, however, theoretical understandings of the defense attorney’s work have expanded to …

Getting Gideon Right, Andrew L.B. Davies, Blane Skiles, Pamela R. Metzger, Janelle Gursoy, Alex Romo

Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government must provide a criminal defense lawyer for any accused person who cannot afford one. But for too many people, Gideon's promise remains unfulfilled. In Texas, there are no statewide guidelines about who is entitled to a court-appointed lawyer. Instead, counties create their own rules that create serious gaps in constitutional protection. Getting Gideon Right investigates the financial standards that determine an accused person's eligibility for appointed counsel in Texas county courts. The report reveals a patchwork of county court policies that are both complex and severe.

The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholarship tends to obscure how changes in criminal process relate to broader changes in the political and economic terrain. This Article offers a modest corrective to this tendency. By studying the U.S. Supreme Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence, as it has developed since the mid-70s, I show the pervasive impact of the concurrent rise of neoliberalism on relationships between defendants and their attorneys. Since 1975, the Court has emphasized two concerns in its rulings regarding the right to counsel: choice and autonomy. These, of course, are nominally good things for defendants to have. But by paying close attention to …

Juveniles In The Interrogation Room: Defense Attorneys As A Protective Factor, Caitlin Noelle August

Dissertations and Theses

Juveniles have a lower comprehension of their Miranda rights than adults, and in turn, are more likely to waive those rights and cooperate during an interrogation. Some states require youths to consult with their parents before/during the interrogation; however, this involvement can be detrimental to the juvenile suspect. Recently, laws in California and Illinois have mandated that juveniles consult with a defense attorney prior to the interrogation, or that the attorney is present during the interrogation.

Through semi-structured interviews with 19 juvenile defense attorneys across the state of Oregon, I explored defense attorneys' perspectives on juveniles' legal decision-making in the …

The Expansive Reach Of Pretrial Detention, Paul Heaton

All Faculty Scholarship

Today we know much more about the effects of pretrial detention than we did even five years ago. Multiple empirical studies have emerged that shed new light on the far-reaching impacts of bail decisions made at the earliest stages of the criminal adjudication process. The takeaway from this new generation of studies is that pretrial detention has substantial downstream effects on both the operation of the criminal justice system and on defendants themselves, causally increasing the likelihood of a conviction, the severity of the sentence, and, in some jurisdictions, defendants’ likelihood of future contact with the criminal justice system. Detention …

Limiting A Driver’S Limited Right To Counsel In Dwi Proceedings: State V. Rosenbush, 931 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 2019), Lisa Perunovich

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prejudice-Based Rights In Criminal Procedure, Justin Murray

Articles & Chapters

This Article critically examines a cluster of rules that use the concept of prejudice to restrict the scope of criminal defendants’ procedural rights, forming what I call prejudice-based rights. I focus, in particular, on outcome-centric prejudice- based rights—rights that apply only when failing to apply them might cause prejudice by affecting the outcome of the case. Two of criminal defendants’ most important rights fit this description: the right, originating in Brady v. Maryland, to obtain favorable, “material” evidence within the government’s knowledge, and the right to effective assistance of counsel. Since prejudice (or equivalently, materiality) is an element of these …

Reviving Escobedo, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Symposium Essay reflects on the fifty years that have passed since the Chicago Eight trial by highlighting a new development in criminal procedure that has drawn little scholarly attention: Judges are reviving the right of stationhouse access to defense counsel along lines previously envisaged in Escobedo v. Illinois. The Essay also offers fresh historical and theoretical perspective on the need for stationhouse counsel. First, the Essay draws on a series of events occurring during and after the Chicago Eight trial to illustrate the interrelationship of violence and silence in criminal legal systems, the distinctive coerciveness of custodial interrogation for …

Procedural Fairness In Antitrust Enforcement: The U.S. Perspective, Christopher S. Yoo, Hendrik M. Wendland

All Faculty Scholarship

Due process and fairness in enforcement procedures represent a critical aspect of the rule of law. Allowing greater participation by the parties and making enforcement procedures more transparent serve several functions, including better decisionmaking, greater respect for government, stronger economic growth, promotion of investment, limits corruption and politically motivated actions, regulation of bureaucratic ambition, and greater control of agency staff whose vision do not align with agency leadership or who are using an enforcement matter to advance their careers. That is why such distinguished actors as the International Competition Network (ICN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the …

Incorporating Collateral Consequences Into Criminal Procedure, Paul T. Crane

Law Faculty Publications

A curious relationship currently exists between collateral consequences and criminal procedures. It is now widely accepted that collateral consequences are an integral component of the American criminal justice system. Such consequences shape the contours of many criminal cases, influencing what charges are brought by the government, the content of plea negotiations, the sentences imposed by trial judges, and the impact of criminal convictions on defendants. Yet, when it comes to the allocation of criminal procedures, collateral consequences continue to be treated as if they are external to the criminal justice process. Specifically, a conviction’s collateral consequences, no matter how severe, …

Privatizing Criminal Procedure, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

As the staggering costs of the criminal justice system continue to rise, states have begun to look for nontraditional ways to pay for criminal prosecutions and to shift these costs onto criminal defendants. Many states now impose a surcharge on defendants who exercise their constitutional rights to counsel, confrontation, and trial by jury. As these “user fees” proliferate, they have the potential to fundamentally change the nature of criminal prosecutions and the way we think of constitutional rights. The shift from government funding of criminal litigation to user funding constitutes a privatization of criminal procedure. This intrusion of market ideology …

The State Of The Death Penalty, Ankur Desai, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The death penalty is in decline in America and most death penalty states do not regularly impose death sentences. In 2016 and 2017, states reached modern lows in imposed death sentences, with just thirty-one defendants sentenced to death in 2016 and thirty-nine in 2017, as compared with over three hundred per year in the 1990s. In 2016, only thirteen states imposed death sentences, and in 2017, fourteen did so, although thirty-one states retain the death penalty. What explains this remarkable and quite unexpected trend? In this Article, we present new analysis of state-level legislative changes that might have been expected …

New York Breaks Gideon’S Promise, Rebecca King

Pace Law Review

In 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have the constitutional right to counsel, regardless of whether they can afford one, in the famous case of Gideon v. Wainwright. However, statistics, as well as public defense attorneys, reveal that the Supreme Court’s decision has yet to be fulfilled. Part of the problem is due to the system of mass incarceration in the United States. In 2013, the Brennan Center for Justice reported that the prison population reached 2.3 million individuals, compared to the 217,000 inmates imprisoned when Gideon was decided. The American Bar Association estimates …

A Measure Of Our Justice System: A Look At Maine's Indigent Criminal Defense Delivery System, Ronald W. Schneider Jr.

Maine Law Review

This Comment will examine briefly the history of the right to counsel and the accompanying right to the effective assistance of counsel in this country. At the time the Sixth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, the United States rejected the English practice of denying the right to counsel to those accused of felonies while granting the right to those charged with misdemeanors. People in the United States have enjoyed the right to counsel in all criminal cases, felonies and misdemeanors, since 1791. Yet in a very real and dangerous sense, the courts have reversed the course of …

Improving The Indigent Defense Crisis Through Decriminalization, Bryan Altman

Arkansas Law Review

“The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not still be done.” The constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions is one of the many safeguards contained within the Sixth Amendment designed to protect the fundamental human rights of life and liberty. Unfortunately, for indigent defendants that safeguard of life and liberty operates as a mere platitude today. Stephen Bright, founder of the Southern Center for Human Rights, has bleakly summarized the crisis of indigent defense, noting that while the right to counsel is widely celebrated, …

Isonomy, Austerity, And The Right To Choose Counsel, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

People who can afford to hire criminal defense attorneys have a Sixth Amendment right to choose a lawyer who is qualified, available, and free from conflicts of interest. The same right to choose counsel is routinely denied to people who need government-paid defense lawyers because they cannot afford to hire attorneys. In prior work, I invoked democratic theory to argue that this de jure discrimination blocks constitutional law formation by poor people and should be eliminated. This Article extends the analysis by explaining how a different theoretical approach—one grounded in libertarian commitments to private enterprise and austerity in public funding—shaped …

Gideon Incarcerated: Access To Counsel In Pretrial Detention, Johanna Kalb

Articles

No abstract provided.

Too Low A Price: Waiver And The Right To Counsel, Zachary L. Heiden

Maine Law Review

Easy waiver of the right to counsel is at the heart of the problem with inadequate funding for criminal defense counsel for the indigent: without freely granted waiver of the right to counsel, the crisis in funding for indigent defense would, in the short term, be greatly magnified. But, the ready acceptance of the waivability of the right to counsel devalues and diminishes the significance of the assistance of counsel in criminal matters.

In Their Defense: Conflict Between The Criminal Defendant’S Right To Counsel Of Choice And The Right To Appointed Counsel, Kit Thomas

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Methamphetamine, Money, And A Motion To Withdraw As Counsel: United States V. Jimenez-Antunez All Boils Down To The Appropriate Standard-, Jessica Haygood

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Jimenez-Antunez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a defendant is not required to show good cause to dismiss his retained counsel, even if the defendant then intends to request appointed counsel. The issue was one of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, and one that has caused some disagreement between the other circuits. There are distinct differences between the right to appointed counsel and the right to retained counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case continues to uphold those distinctions by keeping the standards …

The Downstream Consequences Of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention, Paul Heaton, Sandra G. Mayson, Megan Stevenson

Scholarly Works

In misdemeanor cases, pretrial detention poses a particular problem because it may induce innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to exit jail, potentially creating widespread error in case adjudication. While practitioners have long recognized this possibility, empirical evidence on the downstream impacts of pretrial detention on misdemeanor defendants and their cases remains limited. This Article uses detailed data on hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor cases resolved in Harris County, Texas—the thirdlargest county in the United States—to measure the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes and future crime. We find that detained defendants are 25% more likely than similarly …

Administration Of The Criminal Justice System: When Efficiency Trumps A Fundamental Right, Sean Mcleod

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Antidemocratic Sixth Amendment, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Criminal procedure experts often claim that poor people have no Sixth Amendment right to choose their criminal defense lawyers. These experts insist that the Supreme Court has reserved the Sixth Amendment right to choose for the small minority of defendants who can afford to hire counsel. This Article upends that conventional wisdom with new doctrinal, theoretical, and practical arguments supporting a Sixth Amendment right to choose for all defendants, including the overwhelming majority who are indigent. The Article’s fresh case analysis shows the Supreme Court’s “no-choice” statements are dicta, which the Court’s own reasoning and rulings refute. The Article’s new …

What Gideon Did, Sara Mayeux

All Faculty Scholarship

Many accounts of Gideon v. Wainwright’s legacy focus on what Gideon did not do—its doctrinal and practical limits. For constitutional theorists, Gideon imposed a preexisting national consensus upon a few “outlier” states, and therefore did not represent a dramatic doctrinal shift. For criminal procedure scholars, advocates, and journalists, Gideon has failed, in practice, to guarantee meaningful legal help for poor people charged with crimes.

Drawing on original historical research, this Article instead chronicles what Gideon did—the doctrinal and institutional changes it inspired between 1963 and the early 1970s. Gideon shifted the legal profession’s policy consensus on indigent defense away from …

Officiating Removal, Leah Litman

Articles

For the last several years, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has quietly attempted to curtail capital defendants' representation in state postconviction proceedings. In 2011, various justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court began to call for federally funded community defender organizations to stop representing capital defendants in state postconviction proceedings. The justices argued, among other things, that the organizations' representation of capital defendants constituted impermissible federal interference with state governmental processes and burdened state judicial resources. The court also alleged the community defender organizations were in violation of federal statutes, which only authorized the organizations to assist state prisoners in federal, but …

Fools Rush In Where Lawyers Would Better Tread: The Right To Self-Representation And Related Standards Of Competency, Julia M. Capie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Guiding Hand Of Counsel: Effective Representation For Indigent Defendants In The Cordele Judicial Circuit, Lesley Rowe

Mercer Law Review

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.... He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he had a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If …

The Line Holds, But Death May Matter: The Supreme Court's Criminal Procedure Decisions Of The 2001 Term, William Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.