Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, March 16, 2013

Andrew Cohen: Next Monday, America will quietly mark one of the most profound anniversaries in its legal history. Exactly 50 years ago, on March 18, 1963, the United States Supreme Court unanimously announced in Gideon v. Wainwright that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to every criminal defendant in a felony trial the right to a lawyer. "Reason and reflection," Justice Hugo Black wrote, "require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him." The Gideon decision, heralded in its own time, has profoundly changed America's criminal justice system ever since. In the past half century since the ruling, the constitutional right to counsel has ensured that millions of criminal suspects -- the guilty, the innocent, and the somewhere-in-between -- have been aided by earnest, capable lawyers. But 50 years later there is also much to mourn about Gideon and the Supreme Court standards that followed it.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

BruceBanner

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Today, there is a vast gulf between the broad premise of the ruling and the grim practice of legal representation for the nation's poorest litigants. Yes, you have the right to a court-appointed lawyer today -- the right to a lawyer who almost certainly is vastly underpaid and grossly overworked; a lawyer who, according to a Brennan Center for Justice report published last year, often spends less than six minutes per case at hearings where clients plead guilty and are sentenced. With this lawyer -- often just a "potted plant" -- by your side, you've earned the dubious honor of hearing the judge you will face declare that this arrangement is sufficient to secure your rights to a fair trial.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

One of the better moments in the Court's history. Yes, there are problems associated with the competence of required counsel. However, not every case needs an Abe Fortas, much less on the public dime. For every death penalty case, a large driver in incompetence litigation, there are thousands of lesser gravity. Many of those persons are in fact guilty, know it and want to get it over with yesterday. As long as they are properly advised there should be no civil liberties difficulties. In any event, the situation might not be as bad as the article suggests. Court's seem to be adopting more specific guidelines rather than vague tests.

Hopefully, Moder8 will come along a provide some day to day insight.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-15 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well we can't force all lawyers to work for free.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-15 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have two systems of justice. One for the rich and one for the poor. It is impossible to honestly believe America is the "land of the free" as long as that is the situtation. We incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. We allow private, for-profit prisons. America has lost its moral compass, if it ever really had one.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-16 08:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by danni

Very well said and I could not agree with you more.

Did America ever have a moral compass? When you look at history I am inclined to think no. I know that many if not most think we did and if that is so, when was it?

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-03-16 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did America ever have a moral compass?

Sure we did. It was just pointed in the wrong direction.
Just like this so-called "Respect for life" we supposedly once had.

#5 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2013-03-16 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

America has lost its moral compass, if it ever really had one.

#3 | POSTED BY DANNI

You need no compass if you are on top of the hill. America is exceptional, that should be enough.

#6 | Posted by fribo at 2013-03-16 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Justice is for sale to the highest bidder. Privatizing everything has this effect. Only the countervailing force of public opinion drives the most eggregious high profile cases into the spotlight embarrassing officials into action, such as Trayvon Martin. Cops are virtually always provided a free get out of jail card regardless how violent and unwarranted their behavior. The rich understand how vital police are to keeping the disenfranchised they're sucking the life out of in their proper place. They're just returning the favor.

#7 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-16 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

You need no compass if you are on top of the hill. America is exceptional, that should be enough.

#6 | POSTED BY FRIBO AT 2013-03-16 09:36 AM | FLAG:

Without morality, America is far from exceptional.

We allow private, for-profit prisons.

#3 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2013-03-16 08:06 AM | FLAG:

Surely nothing could ever go wrong with that system...

www.forbes.com

Pennsylvania Judge Gets 'Life Sentence' For Prison Kickback Scheme

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-16 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jesus Christ can most of you not be more cynical. It's worst than broad brush, more like throw the bucket at the wall.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-16 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 posted by Fribo --You need no compass if you are on top of the hill. America is exceptional, that should be enough.

Exactly the attitude that got us where we are today.

Steve H.

#10 | Posted by CVA43 at 2013-03-16 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"With this lawyer -- often just a "potted plant" -- by your side, you've earned the dubious honor of hearing the judge you will face declare that this arrangement is sufficient to secure your rights to a fair trial."

Your rights to a fair trial are in most cases dictated by how much money you have to spend on lawyers.

Even Uncle Sam isn't rich enough to pay for lawyers to take on the big banks, and the poor are just pawns of the system that supports high lawyer salaries.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-16 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Even Uncle Sam isn't rich enough to pay for lawyers to take on the big banks,

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-16 11:54 AM | Reply |

Uncle Sam doesn't care to hire lawyers to go after the big banks unless they want to put them in the bed they share. Now "too big to fail" has become "too bigger to fail"----Dodd Frank has done squat to alleviate the "too big to fail" bank syndrome. It has placed unbelieveable burdens on regional and commercial banks that had nothing to do with the carnage produced by the investment banking industry. In fact, the bullion banks have just become an extension of this administration in the manipulation of certain markets.

#12 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-16 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The issue varies in gravity from state to state. In place such as Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and the South in general, the right to a lawyer is mostly a joke. A grossly underpaid brand new attorney who gets as much money if he/she pleads you guilty at the first appearance or fights the case tooth and nail for months. The system is designed to encourage defense attorneys to dispose cases quickly.
On the other hand, there is no correlation between how much you pay a defense attorney and how good he/she is. Where I work much of the private criminal defense bar is composed of lousy lawyers who couldn't hack it in the Public Defenders office. But clients think that because they are "private" attorneys somehow they must be better.
Bottom line is, if you want to find a good and experienced criminal defense attorney is it always wise to look for someone who is actually certified by the State Bar as a specialist. Especially when looking to hire a private lawyer.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-16 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The issue varies in gravity from state to state. In place such as Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and the South in general, the right to a lawyer is mostly a joke.

My cousin, who practices in Texas has been named a Texas "super-lawyer" (i.e. top 100 lawyers in the state) for four years -- first time in 1999. Her firm requires that every one of their members do x numbers of pro-bono work as a public defender. (she gets paid the same obscene salary, so she doesn't care)

I have no idea if this is the norm in Texas or not (I'll have to ask her) or happens in the other states you cited, but your blanket statement implying otherwise is far off course. She'd be highly offended given her hard work, success rate in the courtroom, and a four time Texas Super Lawyer, to be called a joke. As would her prestigious firm.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-16 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

The issue varies in gravity from state to state.

You could have narrowed it down to county to county and stopped. You don't know a damn thing about appointed lawyers in Texas or any of the other states you deride. So much for thinking you might have something decent to say about the right to counsel, counselor.

Although, part of your second paragraph is spot on.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-16 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman, all b.s. aside, to be named a "super lawyer" by the State Bar magazine all you have to do is shell out the large advertising fee and get a bunch of your friends/colleagues to vouch for you. According to California Lawyer magazine there are thousands of "super lawyers" in this state. I don't know about Texas, but here in CA the title is a joke.
What you really need to look at is certiication as a specialist in a given field.

#16 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-17 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman, all b.s. aside, to be named a "super lawyer" by the State Bar magazine all you have to do is shell out the large advertising fee and get a bunch of your friends/colleagues to vouch for you.

It must be a less stringent process in California than Texas. This is a blurb from the process:

"It is absolutely clear from this record that [Super Lawyers does] not permit a lawyer to buy one's way onto the list,
The entire process is here:

www.superlawyers.com

But her brilliancy as a lawyer aside, your characterization of public defense in the southern states (in Texas at least, and I assume your bias was spread to the other states) is incorrect. This from the State Bar website:

Do State Bar of Texas lawyers do pro bono work? Is it required by law?

State Bar of Texas attorneys averaged 57.5 pro bono hours each in 2009.

And State Bar of Texas attorneys provided 2.24 million to 2.56 million hours of free legal services to low-income people in 2009

http://www.texasbar.com/AM/
Template.cfm?
Section=About_Us_FAQs

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-17 05:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

They still have their 'right'; there is just an availability problem.

#18 | Posted by MSgt at 2013-03-17 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement