The poor no longer have a meaningful right to a lawyer

[James Madison]

Double post

 

[James Madison]

It does make sense to conclude that the vast majority of cases are not being given a competent defense if the average time spent is 4 times less than it would be if all cases got a competent defense. That sets the a priori probability as being very high that any particular case was given a less-than-competent defense, unless there is evidence showing the defense was competent.
Thus, such evidence of general lack of competence should lead a reasonable judge to shift the burden upon the public defender to show evidence of competence, lowering the bar for what the defendant must show to have the conviction thrown out.

Of course, by itself this is not a long term solution because it would just shift the errors in the system from too many false convictions to too many failures to convict objectively guilty suspects. But what it would do is put pressure on the government and the public to properly fund the PD offices, if they want the courts to be able to enforce and uphold the laws.

It does make sense to conclude that the vast majority of cases are not being given a competent defense if the average time spent is 4 times less than it would be if all cases got a competent defense. That sets the a priori probability as being very high that any particular case was given a less-than-competent defense, unless there is evidence showing the defense was competent.

The conclusion doesn’t follow from your stated reasons. For instance, the Missouri study asked attorneys for an “average time” in which some cases may require less or more time. Hence, no particular case can have a “priori probability” of “very high” based on an “average.” Rather, the studies make a general assertion that X number of hours is necessary. The article is not suggesting a particular case, if it is below X number hours, is presumed to not have received a competent defense.

Whether a competent defense was given in any particular case can’t be deduced or presumed on the basis of these numbers but instead on A.) facts of the case and B.) hours spent in relation to those facts and C.) specific type of work done.

For instance, F4 burglary of a dwelling and the facts are: 1. Defendant’s DNA found at the scene at the broken window to gain entry B) blood trail in the home, again linked to him by DNA, C.) home surveillance showing Defendant on camera at broken window of home and shows him enter through window, D.) lab results confirm DNA hit E.) Proper chain of custody for blood.

An attorney will not need to spend 41.3 hours investigating the case to know the strength and weaknesses of the case, know the reasonably plausible defenses, and conclude it is a strong case and should be pled.

The article does strongly support the notion that more PDs are needed, or a reduction in their case load needs to be achieved.

But the study does not adequately support the idea thatd the system should be revamped to presume any particular case did not receive a competent defense as opposed to evaluating on a case by case basis and scrutinizing the facts of each case, defense made, etcetera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It does make sense to conclude that the vast majority of cases are not being given a competent defense if the average time spent is 4 times less than it would be if all cases got a competent defense. That sets the a priori probability as being very high that any particular case was given a less-than-competent defense, unless there is evidence showing the defense was competent.
Thus, such evidence of general lack of competence should lead a reasonable judge to shift the burden upon the public defender to show evidence of competence, lowering the bar for what the defendant must show to have the conviction thrown out.

Of course, by itself this is not a long term solution because it would just shift the errors in the system from too many false convictions to too many failures to convict objectively guilty suspects. But what it would do is put pressure on the government and the public to properly fund the PD offices, if they want the courts to be able to enforce and uphold the laws.

It does make sense to conclude that the vast majority of cases are not being given a competent defense if the average time spent is 4 times less than it would be if all cases got a competent defense. That sets the a priori probability as being very high that any particular case was given a less-than-competent defense, unless there is evidence showing the defense was competent.

The conclusion doesn’t follow from your stated reasons. For instance, the Missouri study asked attorneys for an “average time” in which some cases may require less or more time. Hence, no particular case can have a “priori probability” of “very high” based on an “average.” Rather, the studies make a general assertion that X number of hours is necessary. The article is not suggesting a particular case, if it is below X number hours, is presumed to not have received a competent defense.

Whether a competent defense was given in any particular case can’t be deduced or presumed on the basis of these numbers but instead on A.) facts of the case and B.) hours spent in relation to those facts and C.) specific type of work done.

For instance, F4 burglary of a dwelling and the facts are: 1. Defendant’s DNA found at the scene at the broken window to gain entry B) blood trail in the home, again linked to him by DNA, C.) home surveillance showing Defendant on camera at broken window of home and shows him enter through window, D.) lab results confirm DNA hit E.) Proper chain of custody for blood.

An attorney will not need to spend 41.3 hours investigating the case to know the strength and weaknesses of the case, know the reasonably plausible defenses, and conclude it is a strong case and should be pled.

The article does strongly support the notion that more PDs are needed, or a reduction in their case load needs to be achieved.

But the study does not adequately support the idea thatd the system should be revamped to presume any particular case did not receive a competent defense as opposed to evaluating on a case by case basis and scrutinizing the facts of each case, defense made, etcetera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this argument is that we have a large number of cases--averages are meaningful.

 

[James Madison]

The conclusion doesn’t follow from your stated reasons. For instance, the Missouri study asked attorneys for an “average time” in which some cases may require less or more time. Hence, no particular case can have a “priori probability” of “very high” based on an “average.” Rather, the studies make a general assertion that X number of hours is necessary. The article is not suggesting a particular case, if it is below X number hours, is presumed to not have received a competent defense.

Whether a competent defense was given in any particular case can’t be deduced or presumed on the basis of these numbers but instead on A.) facts of the case and B.) hours spent in relation to those facts and C.) specific type of work done.

For instance, F4 burglary of a dwelling and the facts are: 1. Defendant’s DNA found at the scene at the broken window to gain entry B) blood trail in the home, again linked to him by DNA, C.) home surveillance showing Defendant on camera at broken window of home and shows him enter through window, D.) lab results confirm DNA hit E.) Proper chain of custody for blood.

An attorney will not need to spend 41.3 hours investigating the case to know the strength and weaknesses of the case, know the reasonably plausible defenses, and conclude it is a strong case and should be pled.

The article does strongly support the notion that more PDs are needed, or a reduction in their case load needs to be achieved.

But the study does not adequately support the idea thatd the system should be revamped to presume any particular case did not receive a competent defense as opposed to evaluating on a case by case basis and scrutinizing the facts of each case, defense made, etcetera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this argument is that we have a large number of cases--averages are meaningful.

I didn’t say averages were meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The conclusion doesn’t follow from your stated reasons. For instance, the Missouri study asked attorneys for an “average time” in which some cases may require less or more time. Hence, no particular case can have a “priori probability” of “very high” based on an “average.” Rather, the studies make a general assertion that X number of hours is necessary. The article is not suggesting a particular case, if it is below X number hours, is presumed to not have received a competent defense.

Whether a competent defense was given in any particular case can’t be deduced or presumed on the basis of these numbers but instead on A.) facts of the case and B.) hours spent in relation to those facts and C.) specific type of work done.

For instance, F4 burglary of a dwelling and the facts are: 1. Defendant’s DNA found at the scene at the broken window to gain entry B) blood trail in the home, again linked to him by DNA, C.) home surveillance showing Defendant on camera at broken window of home and shows him enter through window, D.) lab results confirm DNA hit E.) Proper chain of custody for blood.

An attorney will not need to spend 41.3 hours investigating the case to know the strength and weaknesses of the case, know the reasonably plausible defenses, and conclude it is a strong case and should be pled.

The article does strongly support the notion that more PDs are needed, or a reduction in their case load needs to be achieved.

But the study does not adequately support the idea thatd the system should be revamped to presume any particular case did not receive a competent defense as opposed to evaluating on a case by case basis and scrutinizing the facts of each case, defense made, etcetera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this argument is that we have a large number of cases--averages are meaningful.

I didn’t say averages were meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then what's the point in arguing that some cases are very easy? Others are harder.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Maybe a system of "public defense duty" for lawyers similar to "jury duty" for citizens can be implemented. Any lawyer in good standing can be called to serve in a case randomly.

I agree (much as I hate it when that happens ). There are definitely some lawyers whose general outlook might be improved by such a tour of duty, not to mention the benefits to they PD system.

Only a very small percentage of lawyers practice criminal law. I can't imagine being drafted into something like this if all I ever did was civil cases. It would be worse than having an overworked public defender.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The title of this thread implies that the poor once had a fair means of representation. That is likely a flawed belief, based on history.

 

[James Madison]

I didn’t say averages were meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then what's the point in arguing that some cases are very easy? Others are harder.

Clearly not to say averages are meaningless. Neither can my argument be reduced to the mid characterization of some cases are “easy” and “others are harder.” I responded to a very specific and narrow claim made by another poster. The dialogue didn’t include any notion of averages as “meaningless.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk