Yes, I'm usually the last one to catch up on the good news...especially when that good news is involves Public Defense in Texas! I'm guessing Gideon has covered it but here is a short snippet from the article I read:
The state's first public defender office for capital murder cases is now open in Lubbock. As NewsChannel 11 first told you last summer, the Lubbock based office will encompass over 80 counties, from the tip of the panhandle down to San Angelo.I'm certain there are better articles on this out there but this is the one that fell into my Google Alerts.Typically, one death penalty case costs counties and taxpayers anywhere from $150,000 to $500,000. Now, the public defenders office will pick up those costs.
"We'll be providing the two attorneys that are required by statue," said Jack Stoffregen, Chief of the West Texas Region Public Defender for Capital Murder Cases. "The mitigation that's required by statue as well as a fact investigator.
-------------------------
A recent story in the Concord Monitor really got my attention. It made me wonder why reporters don't follow up on outrageous claims from the people they interview. Take the following, a paragraph from a story about the not so subtle differences between court-appointed and private defense attorney's:
"The conventional wisdom is that if you are broke, you are going to get a dewy-eyed, freshman public defender," said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon district attorney and vocal defender of the death penalty. "That might have been true 25 years ago, but there are a number of resources available to indigent clients, and rightfully so. I am outspent 20 to 1 by indigent clients."
20 to 1? Is this Marquis character serious? Maybe I'm not familiar with the trials and tribulations of indigent defense in the state of Oregon but for someone from the DA's office with resources that include local Police and Sheriff Department agencies, In-house District Attorney investigators, State Department of Justice Laboratories and the State of Oregon to be outspent by an indigent defendant is outrageous!
I guess what bothers me the most is that the reporter, Annmarie Timmins from the Concord Monitor didn't bother to follow up on proof that those 20-1 numbers weren't just pulled out of his ass. It's a quick read if you have time. On the plus side, the story mentions that the NH Attorney General's office has a lot of respect for the New Hampshire Public Defenders Office which people really seem to respect out there and on the downside...they called most other states inept.
Inept court-appointed attorneys have been a common complaint among death-penalty
opponents in other states. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who brought the capital urder charges against Brooks and Addison, said indigent clients in New Hampshire don't have to fear the same here. "Our public defenders are very dedicated and very aggressive," Ayotte said. "And it's been my experience that they focus zealously on representing their clients. They are excellent at what they do."
I think I'm slightly offended but I'll get over it.
1 comments:
This is something that nobody really wants to be honest about. Nobody prosecutor wants to say, “We won because the defendant had ineffective assistance.” They probably don’t’ want to say, “There is NO ineffective assistance in the country, however.” The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.
Being “outspent” by indigent clients seems to be a very carefully chose phrase. It *might* be true, if he refers only to, say, experts hired by indigent defendants in cases where the state’s already-on-staff experts testify.
Post a Comment