Latest Headlines
- Costco Nine Mile Road Plans Set For Development Review Meeting
- Scattered Showers And Thunderstorms Likely Saturday And Sunday
- Lightning Strike Causes Water Outage, Boil Notice In Cottage Hill
- A Very Good Boy: ECSO K-9 Streeter Awarded Medal Of Courage For Jumping Off Bridge After Suspect
- Alabama Death Row Inmate Executed At Atmore Prison For 1998 Shooting Of Father Of Seven
- Plans Refiled For Circle K At Highway 95A, Quintette Road; Intersection Improvements Proposed
- Two-Time Super Bowl Champion Anthony Pleasant Meet & Greet, Catfish Fundraiser Saturday In Century
- Officials Warn Of Possible Alligator In Flomaton’s Hurricane Lake
- Hank’s Furniture to Pay $110K In EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
- Voter Registration And Party Change Deadline Is Monday, July 22
Supreme Court Considers Right To Public Defender
June 8, 2012
Grappling with whether poor people are getting adequate representation, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday about whether the Miami-Dade County public defender’s office should be able to decline to take cases because of overwork.
The dispute raises constitutional questions about the quality of representation provided to criminal defendants and the relationship between the courts system and the Legislature. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office and a statewide group of prosecutors have fought the Miami-Dade public defender’s attempts to decline to take certain types of felony cases.
Parker Thomson, an attorney for the public defender, argued Thursday that the Supreme Court has said lawyers should not represent clients if they can’t effectively handle the cases.
“This court said when you can’t represent a person, get out,” Thomson said. “And if you have not yet accepted representation, decline.”
But Louis Hubener, an attorney for the state, pointed to a law that bars public defenders from withdrawing from cases solely because of “inadequacy of funding or excess workload.” Also, he raised questions about the past management of the Miami-Dade public defender’s office, saying it had not filled open lawyer positions and instead used the money to increase salaries.
“He (the public defender) has to be accountable to someone for the use of his resources,” Hubener said.
The Supreme Court, which typically takes months to rule in such disputes, will consider two decisions by the 3rd District Court of Appeal that sided with the attorney general and prosecutors. The issue has been in the court system since 2008 and involves two related lawsuits — one focused on the overall public defender’s office and the other focused on an assistant public defender.
In the lawsuit involving the overall office, for example, a circuit judge ruled that then-Public Defender Bennett Brummer could temporarily decline to take third-degree felony cases. The 3rd District Court of Appeal overturned that ruling in 2009 and followed a year later in the case involving the assistant public defender.
Public defenders sometimes withdraw from representing people because of conflicts that arise, such as two clients being implicated in the same crime. The state has a system of what are known as “regional counsels” that can take cases, and private lawyers also can be appointed.
The Supreme Court justices Thursday asked numerous questions of attorneys on both sides of the Miami-Dade case. Justices R. Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente, for instance, questioned Hubener about meeting the constitutional requirement that poor defendants receive effective legal representation.
Pariente said she agrees evaluations have to be based on more than just excessive caseloads. But she also pointed to an assistant public defender with 600 or more cases, indicating she thought that could prevent effective representation.
“I can’t believe there was a lawyer who had a caseload during a year of 600 cases,” she said.
Justice Ricky Polston, meanwhile, asked Thomson whether the “heart of the matter” was not enough funding from the Legislature. Polston also asked how the Supreme Court could resolve the issues.
“We can’t just make a decision out of thin air,” Polston said at one point.
Comments
5 Responses to “Supreme Court Considers Right To Public Defender”
REGARDING:
“he meant “DWLS” which stands for “driving while license suspended”. ”
Okay. I wasn’t familiar with that one. Stilllllll, if people can’t legally get on the road, they shouldn’t be on the road. Not talking about mix-ups, talking about licenses suspended or revoked due to previous infractions.
I also knew a person who had been in Florida over ten years, had numerous accidents, finally had a highway patrolman explain to her that her Alabama learner’s permit had expired many years ago. She never had a legal right to drive in Florida but the officers must have overlooked her infractions out of concern for the three children she kept endangering every time she had a minor wreck.
In the case you cite, I have to wonder if a lawyer was actually needed or they just feared what might happen if they lacked one. Folks can be intimidating.
I am reminded of the 2000 election when many were scared to vote because there were POLICE officers near the polls. I would have thought, “Well of course there were,” but it seems they had never voted before and were scared senseless of law enforcement officers.
David for a clear conscience
David,
I believe that he meant “DWLS” which stands for “driving while license suspended”. I agree with that in some respects but not so much in others. I knew a man who was arrested for DWLS when he went through a road block. He had no idea it had been suspended. Several years earlier, he received a ticket for speeding, paid it and assumed all was well. Somehow, wires were crossed at the Clerk’s office and the payment was not credited to him. Unbeknownst to him, a warrant was issued for his arrest and his license was suspended, hence the arrest for DWLS. His wife searched through their records, found the receipt and canceled check and took them to the Clerk. They still had to pay a bond, hire an attorney and go to court at which time all charges were dropped. The whole thing was a huge waste of their time and money and a lot of wasted man hours from the SO to the Clerk’s employees to court employees, etc.
REGARDING:
“prosecuting defendants for crimes that could be ticketed and given fines. we have people in jail on peti crimes such as dwls or in possession.”
I guess part of it is disagreement as to the seriousness of assorted crimes. I consider a DUI a murder that just hasn’t happened yet and you consider it a minor matter (assuming that is what “dwls” meant), possibly under the common but erroneous “everybody does it” philosophy.
Other crimes, though, I will eliminate when I get to be President and not just because so many of my cousins are involved in the associated agricultural endeavors.
David for right to be left alone on your own property
and unencumbered minds when behind the wheels of vehicles
David i agree but i also agree that we are prosecuting defendants for crimes that could be ticketed and given fines. we have people in jail on peti crimes such as dwls or in possession. i mean our court system is overloaded and we need laws to prevent that. what happened to the harm principle that laws were based on?
REGARDING:
“Justice Ricky Polston, meanwhile, asked Thomson whether the “heart of the matter” was not enough funding from the Legislature.”
An interesting concept. Generally speaking having a right does not require action on the part of other people.
Right to freely assemble does not require government to build you an assembly hall.
Right to speak does not require government to provide you a loud speaker.
Right to a free press does not require government to provide you a printing press.
Right to an attorney, however, has been interpreted to include government providing you an attorney if you can not afford one. Therefore, the right to an attorney includes paying that attorney which means your right to an attorney means taxes must be raised on others to pay for your attorney.
This implies the legislature MUST raise taxes enough to suit the minimum level of public defenders the courts determine. This would mean the legislature would have to raise those taxes or release the defendants. This would mean the branches of government were not actually independent but had to do what the judiciary said.
Of course, the judiciary has no power to enforce so that would definitely be a can of worms if they followed the Andrew Jackson response to an unpopular Supreme Court decision when he said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
On the other side, government would thereby be limited in the laws it could pass if it had to pay for both sides of the arguments when enforcement went to court.
David for fair, simple, tolerable laws