posted on June 19, 2002 11:55:47 AM new
Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 16, page B3:
"Cuyahoga County courts have again slashed payments to lawyers assigned to represent poor defendants, leaving some criminal defense lawyers and judges alarmed."
(my note: they are concerned lawyers won't work as hard to defend the poor)
(skipping to another paragraph)
"The court assigns lawyers to represent poor people and pays them on a schedule depending on the seriousness of the crime."
(skipping again)
The reason for the cuts: "....to help ease the county's budget woes."
Example:"The biggest cut will affect lawyers assigned to death-penalty cases. The max....is now$11,250. But if, before the trial, the judge...drops the possibility of a death penalty, ...[they] will get only $6,000.
posted on June 19, 2002 12:13:48 PM new
Why do we need to defend the poor? As any true blue Republican patriot knows that the poor are always guilty. We need to save that money for services to the ultra-rich need want public funding for a servant to wipe their a$$
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
posted on June 19, 2002 02:38:51 PM new
I don't think it makes much difference how much they are paid, unless you are rich and have the resources to out spend the state, you're going down one way or the other.
I know the "justice" system's answer is that money and resources make no difference, but that's a crock of bull.
How many poor defendants have a PR person, someone to tell them how to dress, and a psychologist to help pick the jury, not to mention 4 lawyers? Ever notice how a rich person immediately has a lawyer speaking for them, even before they are suspects or arrested ?
Our political and justice systems are horribly broken, the economic system is next.
posted on June 19, 2002 02:46:07 PM new
Reamond - Since [I believe] you're aware that I respect your opinions and posts, I'd personally be interested in hearing what you think could be done to start repairing the justice system? How can we make it equally fair for an accused be they rich or poor?
posted on June 19, 2002 02:49:50 PM new
Can you imagine the quality of legal representation that a poor person will receive with a four dollar an hour lawyer?
This is why the death penalty is so unfair.
"The biggest cut will affect lawyers assigned to death-penalty cases. The maximum compensation allowed for lawyers for those capital cases is now $11,250, down 10 percent from last year. [b]But if, before the trial, the judge or prosecutors drop the possibility of a death penalty, lawyers will get only $6,000."
Undoubtedly, the number of death penalty cases will increase...with collusion between the lawyers, prosecuters and judge.
posted on June 19, 2002 03:27:12 PM new
In order to be a lawyer a certain amount of your casework would have to be provided free of charge, assigned at random by the court.
But then what would you do about stupid juries????
posted on June 19, 2002 09:28:43 PM new
Linda K- One thing is juries. If there were a way to educate the general public that lawyers aren't under oath when they speak to juries and the press, and how someone dresses and looks has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence, and that it is the lawyers job to spin the media and the jury, it would be a start. I think that lawyers should not be allowed to exclude jurors. 12 are drawn by lot and that's who you get. Any screening should be done before the drawing and by the judge without the lawyers present, and only blatant prejudices to the case in general should be excluded before the jury is seated.
Second is resources, which has a snowballs chance in &ell of being changed.
The wealthy can place a wall between themselves and the justice system, with lawyers and other employees.
But it is not just at the trial level that the problems and prejudices start.
The Ramsey case is very interesting. The Ramsey's received special treatment as soon as the police showed up. They were wealthy, and could intimidate and control the police dept with their wealth and power. Poor people complain about police treatment too, but poor people don't support and donate money to mayors and council members to get elected - and these people decide who is police chief and how far a policemen's career can go - or even if he/she keeps their job.
Think of how different it would have been had the Ramsey family been a poor family. A poor family's house would have been searched top to bottom, with little respect for the family. At a rich executives house, there was a cursory search and the body was found later. The police can't disturb or insult rich people by thoroughly searching their house or asking questions that may implicate the rich person.
Next, once the body was found in a poor person's house, the parents or any adults there would be questioned without a lawyer - they either can not afford one and don't know that they should have one. The police would intimidate the poor people to the greatest degree possible until they extracated any evidence that would show some culpability. Then the poor people would never see the outside of a jail cell.
The wealthy involve a lawyer immediately. They know their rights, they know what to say and what not to say, they know when to remain silent and their lawyer(s) are right there with them reminding the police of their clients rights and just how far he'll allow the police to go with their questioning. The poor don't know to ask if they can leave the interogation, and if they are told they can't, they don't know then to ask if they are under arrest or to just leave and remain silent.
The police would also give a press conference and tell the media that a poor suspect isn't cooperating if they refused to answer questions, and they'll do it too the rich person too, but the rich person has a lawyer and a PR person on the courthouse steps also giving a press conference stating that their client is innocent and that the police are badgering and trying to pick on or frame their client.
I would bet that the outcome of the Texas woman who drowned her kids would have been very different had she been wealthy. She would have been whisked off to a private psych clinic, arrested there and probably allowed to stay there while a bevy of convincing doctors lined up to testify on her behalf. There would also be a PR person on TV every night making her look more favorable to the public. She would be briefed on how to dress and how to speak and what to say. More likely than not, she would have been found incompetent to stand trial, and if the trial judge found differently, the case would still be in the appellte process, and the defendant would stay in the private psych clinic rather than jail.
Even being placed in jail is different for the wealthy. John Gotti had fresh cheese flown in for him every week. And I imagine the guards treated him like a celebrity. Was it a holiday for him ? Likely not, but he fared much better than the poor in jail.
I haven't a clue how this will ever change. The public isn't going to tax themselves to provide equal legal resources for the poor. We won't even tax ourselves to provide medical care for the poor.
How are you going to change a police dept, which is a political entity, that they will treat rich and poor the same, when the political body they work for is at the beckon call of the wealthy ?
How are you going to change the attitude of juries when the general public is enamoured with celebrity - whether the celebrity is a wealthy defendant or the lawyer ?
If you pay the public defender $4 an hour, how many experts will line up to testify in the case - for free ?
Remember the Kennedy rape case in Florida ? The defence had experts on flora and fauna testifying about some plant material in the victims underwear, and the state couldn't even match the resources of the Kennedys. The poor can't even get DNA testing done.
A trial has been reduced to nothing more than a Broadway show. Those that have the money put on a blockbuster, the poor give a penny serenade, and then go to prison.
Judges are at fault too. They allow much of the "show" to be put on by wealthy defendants. But if they ruled otherwise, then you have the appeal procees to contend with. If you think a defence attorney is expensive, an appellate lawyer is even more so.
posted on June 19, 2002 11:01:39 PM new
Helen, thanks for the link!
[b]Can you imagine the quality of legal representation that a poor person will receive with a four dollar an hour lawyer?
This is why the death penalty is so unfair.[/b]
I agree. In this way, the poor are nearly guaranteed a quick death verdict. The same problem happens in health care. Many free or reduced health plans send you to "green" or disinterested doctors. People have died as a result.
I think that lawyers should not be allowed to exclude jurors. 12 are drawn by lot and that's who you get.
Yep. I wish could choose my own accusers. It ceases to be a [i]random selection of peers.
A poor family's house would have been searched top to bottom,
posted on June 20, 2002 02:54:55 AM new
A basic change that would make a big difference would be to remove the adversariel nature of the representation and make it a serious crime with dire penalties for the prosecutor to hold back evedence of innocence.
Right now every conviction is like a notch on their gun. The prosecutor AND the judge get credit only for convictions and harsh sentances. There is NO merit or reward for revealing truth. So it rewards frying an innocent person. Now this fee structure makes it better for the defending lawyer to allow a death penalty plea. Brilliant!
posted on June 20, 2002 09:08:23 AM new
gravid- The only problem with getting rid of the adversarial system is that you may never know if the prosecuter has delivered all the evidence, or just how circumspect they were in developing evidence.
It's like medicine, we know far more about the diseases and life processes of white males than any other group. Does this mean that the other groups are more healthy ?
I am not advocating that the poor should not be found guilty, nor avoid penalties. The problem arises in that the rich can and do avoid these results.
posted on June 20, 2002 11:36:50 AM new
Cutting back on fees for the poor is downright criminal on the part of advocates and they should be the first to go to trial, IMO. While it is difficult to even understand how large the problem of uneven justice is in this land, it is harder to understand the outright stupidity and ignorance that surrounds people who are blind to the systems' inadequacies, particularly those who believe that efforts in place for the prevention of Crime should have its support kicked out from under them. These same stupid, uneducated people want to remove our society's safety nets, demolish our public schools, and roll-back all laws that force the playing field to be equal - all in the name of saving money. What they fail to learn is that these measures that they are paying for PREVENT CRIME because those with no other options will always take matters into their own hands to survive and to resolve issues by their own means when the Halls of Justice are priced above their reach. You should SEE how these monsters look down their noses and get upset when it is suggested that the Poor get free legal help - especially from lawyers, who throw-up at the thought that their Harvard graduate Law Degrees might actually go for Pro Bono work! That the average citizen can not avail themselves of the legal system to resolve personal issues is a shame on a Democracy. DON'T preach to me about Poor people who can always walk through the doors to any courtroom and get their Day in Court! That's crap! The system is so constructed that ONLY a lawyer or the legally trained know how to file even basic no-contest divorce papers or other matters that should be easy to do and thereby make the courts more accessible. I've seen many a legal case performed, civil, family, criminal. Most times, the lawyer simply sat there and said next to nothing, except to agree or disagree. And instead of having forms for folks to fill out for court papers, when they learn that you "just write out what you want" to a Judge, most people give up there! So here is what *I* propose to help the system:
+ Expand the roll of Judges and Courts by having local neighborhood courts that would be like Small Claims Court. Make the cost less than $20.00 (or free to those who qualify) to be able to get a judgment from these courts. Make the laws reflect the power of that court to attach wages, liens on property, and to have the local Sheriff's office get involved to enforce the court order.
+ That courts allow the use of Forms. WHO of the Poor can fill out a blank sheet of paper to adequately present it to the Court? There is no excuse to make hurdles that ordinary people cannot hop over without extensive help. That's just downright criminal.
+ In Public Schools, High Schools are typically four or three years. For the tenth grade, one whole year of CITIZENSHIP; which entails our government and how it works and what both the Rights AND Responsibilities of being an American is all about! For the eleventh grade, one year of American History and Appreciation of what it means to live in America. For the twelfth grade, one year of how to use the legal system to resolve your problems, rather than taking matters into your own hands.
Right now, the system is set up to keep poor people out ~ except to send them to fill up privately-owned prisons!
posted on June 20, 2002 12:14:21 PM new
Bor- The police and govt don't want the common folks to know and exercise their rights.
Can you imagine how the police would look if all the people they questioned knew their rights ?
Just think how the police couldn't intimidate people who knew their rights.
There are some absolutely bizzzar cases deling with police criminal interrogations.
One case the cops hooked a guy up to a copy machine that had the word Lying on it. They asked if he did the crime and he said NO, they hit the button and the word LYING came out- the guy then confessed.
Another case had a DA come into the room and say he was a lawyer, the suspect spilled his guts to what he thought was "his" lawyer.
I'm not saying these guys shouldn't go to jail, but a wealthy person would never be subjected to these things.
Handling your own case, whether civil or criminal is not the answer.
Judges and juries make decissions based on how you comport yourself in front of them. A good lawyer will put a wall in front of those that would judge you, and/or selectively allow only things that help your casa eminate from you personally.
The reason for having an attorney is not that he may be smarter than you or can fill out forms, but because he can legally be a front man for you, and this includes lying or misleading. But let me qualify the "lying" and misleading by lawyers. A lawyer can "unknowingly" lie for a client without consequences for the lawyer. All the lawyer need show is that the "lie" is what the client told him/her. A lawyer has free reign to purport a "theory" of the case without regard to the truth of the theory. Just look at the OJ Simpson case.
For these reasons, it is imperative to have a lawyer or you're fighting with both hands tied behind your back.
But not just any lawyer will do. A public defender barely has the resources just to see that your basic rights are intact - and much of the time a public defender can't even accomplish that. The appointed attorney does not have the resources to mount an assertive offence, and barely enough for a defence.
An assertive legal offence is imperative to win a tough case, the wealthy have this ability, the vast majority of us do not.
We don't have a justice system, we have a sorting system that punishes those without resources and not those with resources.
posted on June 20, 2002 12:39:43 PM new
Perhaps what would do more good than anything would be a reality TV show where they take a scumbag of a fellow who has committed some crime and show the lawyer cleaning him up and making him shave and put a suit on. Then he could teach him how to sit in the court and how to look at the defendant and jury. Then he would discuss with him how he and the defence psychologist are going to rig the jury and pull in some professional expert witnesses. If all else fails they could just outright use bribery or intimidate some witnesses so people know how to do these things.
posted on June 20, 2002 01:46:25 PM new
At levels through the superior courts in any county even hired lawyers seldom do a person much good. The local system is like a club in which you scratch each other's back to make a living. Any attorney who raises a judge's hackles will find that his cases don't proceed through the court well, that he has no leverage in out of court settlements, and that if he depends on public defender work his name keeps getting lost on the roster. Many of the working attorneys in about any locality also have political aspirations; specifically they want to hold open the option of election or appointment to a judgeship. That possibility keeps them behaving. It ain't like TV.
posted on June 20, 2002 02:39:39 PM new
The public defender and public interest lawyers aren't in that situation krs.
ACLU lawyers would rarely ever see a trial from behind the bench. Public interest and defenders know gaining office is about nil.
I might agree to the country club collegiality, except for the cases that have a lot at stake, especially for those representing the wealthy or newsworthy client, or a fat contingent fee or class action. Bargaining cases is another story. That is what usually happens in public defender cases. But I find it is more due to a lack of resources and some cynicism than worrying about your professional reputation.
Your first legal job out of law school will just about define where you are going in the profession. If you go solo, you might get lucky with a wonderful case from your yellow pages ad. If you go into the public defenders office, you might get a solo criminal practice underway doing DWIs and whatever you can get that has paying clients.
If you go into a large firm, and demonstrate you can make rain, you get to stay, but your trial advocacy skills grow dull.
The Johnny Cochrans of the world could care less about holding an elected office- they couldn't afford the pay cut.
Besides, the wealthy, including wealthy lawyers, know that it's easier to have an elected official as your employee that to occupy the office yourself.
posted on June 20, 2002 02:52:46 PM new
I sure wasn't talking about any public defender (who can afford THEM? You have to be poor to qualify) ACLU lawyer, or Johnny Cochrane, or high stake cases.
posted on June 20, 2002 04:31:36 PM new
I too appreciate your input, REAMOND. I agreee with what you are saying. I would also like to clarify what I was suggesting above.
REAMOND, I believe that if we can make Justice accessable to ALL and teach people to use it to settle their greivences, then we will go a long way towards making the Wealthy vs. the Poor Criminal Cases a moot point. The majority of criminal cases of the young center around violence that they have used to solve a situation. My idea is to slow or stop that approach to problem solving.
In my experience, REAMOND, the Poor usually have dropped out of Middle school and never reach High School; or they reach their first year of High School and drop out for a variety of reasons. Keeping them in school is another matter and discussion, but I want to point out that the young poor are seldom educated very well.
Because of this lack of education, the thought of being able to go to a small, local court and represent yourself as one does in Small Claims court, in order to resove small situations in a timely manner will have a tremendous impact on crime. That someone owning you $20.00 can be taken to the court around-the-corner and be made to pay it back or have their wages attached or a repayment plan settled. That's better than what many people do and that's go out for revenge and to collect repayment.
The matter is compounded by the lack of knowledge. It is the lack of knowning what your rights are and how to use the justice system to solve your problems so violence does not have to occur. Jonny's parents can take the parents of the local bullies to court and get restraining orders, reimbursements for damages and expenses incurred through the trauma, and counciling and therapy set up for those involved, to name a few things.
But when the poor are not even aware that they can reslove their issues this way, or those that try to use the system in this manner find a wall of legal requirements and rules that are beyond their comprehension, and so, they resot to settling their grievences through violence.
And even those poor that can read, without legal training, few of those are able to adequately fill out the writs and notices required of them. Our justice system is such that if you don't already know how to do what you want before you go for justice, then you can't even get to the opening gate. Therefore, I suggest Forms and someone there to help them to fill it out.
Court costs by themselves are often prohibitive to the poor. Even if they do manage to want to use the justice system and they do manage to scrawl a note on a piece of paper to get their case to the judge, the costs are often too prohibitive to even concider. Sure, Small Claims court for most folks is not a lot, because the person who looses gets to pay the fees. Unfortunately, collection of debts owed because of forfieiture of income in a court case is seldom enforceable, unless you're talking tens of thousands of dollars - so what's the point of taking a deadbeat to small claims? Therefore, I suggest that new powers for the court to attach wages or accounts to repay these smaller amounts need to be made, or the system is worthless.
posted on June 20, 2002 05:20:21 PM new
It SOUNDS good at first flush but there are some real problems.
Usually the sort of person who is too uneducated to use the present system does not have the sense to get a written note when he loans some friend $20 and it comes down to a he said she said stalemate.
That sort of person also has a real hard time understanding the difference between being treated unfairly and illegally. You are going to have a lot of cases where it a merchant is being accused of selling a person an appliance that turns out to be junk or cases that have to do with things like defaming and libel. Really complex and difficult issues that these people are not geared up to ponder. I can hear the accusation now - "This mother done dis me!"
Are these courts going to have different standards of evidence or are these cases (shudder) going to alter the law from what it is now?
