Despite this main similarity in these two roles, there are plenty of factors that distinguish them from each other. These professionals — public defenders — may cover a number of different types of cases, from minor traffic violations to violent felonies. Why exactly might an individual hire a public defender to work on their case rather than a private attorney? This is a right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.
Public defenders may be required to represent multiple clients, managing several trials at any given period. Before appearing in court, a public defender will work with clients to file any pre-trial motions and guide them through the processes of the court proceedings.
Additionally, they may negotiate with the court to agree on a sentence time, acquittal or bond amount. To become a public defender, candidates will need to have adequate education and experience. Public defenders are required to have a Juris Doctorate, as well as a license to practice law in the relevant state.
For some positions, previous experience in criminal law may be preferred or required. To become a public defender and succeed in the role, a number of soft skills are necessary. Public defenders must have excellent communication skills, both in oral and written forms. They must have comprehensive knowledge of criminal law, court procedures and the judicial system as a whole.
That makes it easier. If you work in an appellate or postconviction office, the emotional toll is a little different. Some find that easier. Once again, a criminal-based clinic or an internship in a public defender office is a good way to expose you to the emotional highs and lows of the job so you can figure out if this work is right for you. To be a public defender is to constantly answer the same question over and over again, whether it is your mother asking or the person cutting your hair: How can you defend someone you know committed a violent crime?
Many people cannot understand how public defenders do what they do, because they are outraged by criminal acts and because they have stereotypical views of the type of people who commit crime. You should think about your answer to this question, both to see if this line of work is right for you and to start preparing now for the cocktail party conversations to come in your future.
One important thing to recognize when you think about answering this question is that public defender work is not all about the innocent. Many law students are excited when they think about exonerating an innocent person, but that is only a small fraction of public defender work.
As a defender, you will represent many people who have committed crimes and you will free many of them on what society might deem to be legal technicalities. You have to not only be okay with that; you have to embrace it. Defenders will have different answers to the question of how they represent the guilty.
Some thrive on the work and believe that the system is so stacked against the poor that they are willing to do whatever it takes to even the playing field. They view themselves as equalizing a power imbalance in society. Others relate to the human side of their jobs and recognize that good people can sometimes do bad things and that people are often affected by the circumstances in their lives.
If we were all defined by our worst acts, think about how you would be judged. Still others focus on the draconian nature of criminal penalties and the inhumane prison conditions.
Even if someone has committed a crime, it does not mean that society should lock her up and throw away the key. Some law students feel drawn to the defense side, but find themselves wondering if they could represent one kind of alleged criminal.
If you are one of these students, you have to do some soul searching and some real investigation to figure out if this is the right job for you. Now 15, the boy was sentenced to 25 years and would not be eligible for parole until he served at least Consider the countless clients of a defense attorney who held the contract to represent indigent defendants in Green County, Ga. He began his public defender career as a young lawyer and quickly adapted to the expected standards of practice that prevailed in Georgia.
The judges demanded that he process his cases quickly, and he obliged. In one four-year period he handled 1, cases, with 1, more than 99 percent resulting in pleas. Some days he would plead dozens of clients in a single court session, and he had little time to get the details necessary to negotiate on their behalf.
As shocking as these stories are, they are not isolated. They represent an embarrassingly low expectation of representation for poor people in much of the country. The lawyers who engage in this substandard practice are shaped by the systems in which they work. The judges who preside over these cases provide their tacit approval of the system.
Judges are often instrumental in creating this system of inadequate representation for the poor. The public defenders resisted, citing crushing caseloads that would make it impossible for them to adequately defend Weis. One had well over cases already and the other more than cases along with significant administrative responsibility.
They further pointed out that the removed lawyers had represented Weis for over a year and they could not now recreate the attorney-client relationship. If Judge Caldwell were truly concerned with the right to counsel, these arguments would have been persuasive. He was not. Judges like Caldwell were common in New Orleans when I joined the management team charged with rebuilding the public defender office there after Hurricane Katrina.
The scene I observed on my first courtroom visit was typical of what I observed throughout my stay there. It was chaotic. Lawyers wandered about the well of the court chatting with one another. The judge was on the bench and the prisoners were lined up in a row on the left side of the courtroom, wearing orange jumpsuits. The lawyers had no contact with the defendants and it was not clear that any of the lawyers had ever met any of the defendants.
When a case was called, one of the lawyers would speak for the accused. Then, the judge called a case with no lawyer. When it was clear that there was no representative for this particular man, the judge turned to the row of defendants and asked the man to stand.
In another instance in New Orleans, I was waiting to observe evening First Appearance Hearings when the magistrate took the bench at p. There were approximately 40 arrestees whose cases needed to be heard that evening. A private attorney represented one of the defendants.
The others were left to a team of two public defenders. After about 10 minutes of discussion, the judge granted the requested bond. As I repeatedly witnessed judges showing such little concern for the rights of the people who rely on publicly funded lawyers, I often thought back to the first training I conducted when I moved to the South.
One session focused on litigating basic suppression motions: challenging searches and seizures, confessions, and identification on Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. The subject matter was foundational to the work of any criminal defense lawyer and there were many new public defenders present. I wanted to make sure all understood how to effectively litigate these issues. The first person to approach me after this session was a Circuit Public Defender, one of the nearly four dozen lawyers appointed to lead this new reform effort.
He told me that he really enjoyed the session. He explained, however, that his lawyers could not do the things we were teaching. Confused, I assured him that they could do these things, and that the session was based entirely on federal and state principles that applied in his circuit.
He then explained to me how things worked where he practices. The judges become very upset if the lawyers file motions, he explained.
Because it slows down the docket, they would not allow his lawyers to litigate these issues. At the time I was dumbfounded. Over the next two years I trained and mentored young lawyers who would return from training sessions eager to demand hearings and litigate issues, only to encounter irate judges of the kind described. It was a daunting, but educational, experience for someone used to much different procedures in a well-functioning system.
It is a grueling task to spend every day pushing back against a system that harbors such low expectations for the quality of representation. It is not surprising that some lawyers enter this system full of idealism but ultimately resign themselves to the status quo. Others simply find it too difficult and leave before the pressure to conform overwhelms them.
This is what happened to Marie, a young lawyer who came to Georgia in to be involved in the new reform effort. Marie was a fiery lawyer who was part of a cohort of public defenders who was going to help transform indigent defense in Georgia. But Marie ultimately became discouraged as countless numbers of her clients fell through the cracks. In her final 13 months as a Georgia public defender, she resolved cases, allowing her three hours per year to devote to each client if she worked hour weeks without taking any vacation time or sick leave.
She struggled on as best she could under these conditions, until she found herself at a crossroads. Should she stay in Georgia, she saw herself becoming a desensitized lawyer resigned to processing poor people through an inhumane system. She left to become a public defender in a well-resourced system. My mother is an author who frequently writes about criminal justice. Many throw their hands up, accepting the current state of injustice.
Others leave the important mission of trying to reform indigent defense in the most dysfunctional systems.
But for those who remain energized and idealistic, they do move the cause of justice forward each day. This was a lesson I learned working in the South, which caused me to rethink my idea of success as a public defender. To explain what I mean, let me tell you about Janelle. Like Marie, Janelle moved to Georgia to join the new statewide system in Despite her business suits and briefcase, as one of two African-Americans practicing in her county, it took some time before courthouse personnel stopped asking her where her lawyer was when she entered the courtroom.
Undeterred, she threw herself into her new career, and quickly won over those with, and before whom, she practiced. Over time, she brought change to the courthouse. In one example, Janelle prepared a seemingly obvious release argument for her client that she had not heard made by any of the more experienced practitioners. Unmoved, Janelle made her pitch to the judge against a chorus of snickers from some of the more experienced members of the bar.
But the judge agreed with Janelle and released her client. Janelle had acted on her duty to her client, not the corrupt ways of the existing system, and thus achieved the best outcome for the client. In the process she began to gradually change the practice in the courthouse. Even had the judge rejected her arguments, however, having the courage to challenge that system, in my newly evolving way of thinking, would have been success.
Given my experiences working in the South, I have come to understand something about the public defenders working in corrupt systems. That they fail to provide every client the representation they deserve does not necessarily mean they are worse lawyers than those I practiced with at PDS. Rather, it indicates that even excellent lawyers, working in systems such as those I experienced in Georgia and Louisiana, have an impossible task.
Public defenders are not real lawyers. Public defenders are fully qualified attorneys who have graduated from Connecticut's law schools as well as from other prestigious law schools throughout the country.
Public defenders stay in their position only long enough to get higher paying jobs in private practice. The average length of service of a public defender within the Division is over ten years. Public defenders offices cannot compete with the technology of private law firms. Public defender offices are fully computerized and equipped with the most-up-to-date legal research software and publications necessary to effectively represent their clients.
Public defenders have no time for their cases. For a number of years, public defenders managed very large caseloads, often at great personal sacrifice. Public defenders don't care about victims. Public defenders staff undertake efforts to speak with victims of crime and to promote a better understanding with victims and the organizations that serve them. Public defenders work for judges and prosecutors. Public defenders adhere to very strict rules of professional responsibility.
Public defenders do not have adequate resources.
0コメント