ACLU Files for Dismissal of Charges After ID Public Defender Shortage

[iluvatar5150]

ACLU files emergency motion with Idaho Supreme Court amid public defender shortage

The ACLU of Idaho is seeking the release of defendants lacking legal representation amid turmoil in the state’s public defense system.

www.ktvb.com

Idaho consolidated control of their public defenders, cut their pay in half, and a bunch quit. Now they don’t have enough to handle the backlog of cases.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Looks like you shouldn't commit crimes unless you can pay for your own defense.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The party of small government can move on to the now-superfluous judges and courts.

 

[rjs330]

Public defenders offices should receive as much funds as the prosecutors office. Each office should have the same budget if you ask me.

Although stares are not required to create an actual public defenders office, but to provide an attorney for the defendant that is qualified to defend them.

Dismissing cases because the state can't provide a public defender for the defendant is a good way to get the state to comply.

Prosecutors typically don't make a lot of money. So it seems to me putting the defense lawyers on the same budget is equal and fair.

 

[Richard T]

Public defenders offices should receive as much funds as the prosecutors office. Each office should have the same budget if you ask me.

Although stares are not required to create an actual public defenders office, but to provide an attorney for the defendant that is qualified to defend them.

Dismissing cases because the state can't provide a public defender for the defendant is a good way to get the state to comply.

Prosecutors typically don't make a lot of money. So it seems to me putting the defense lawyers on the same budget is equal and fair.

Prosecutors paid for by taxes handle all prosecutions. Public defenders handle about 60-80%. I would have thought the gap would be much larger. So to me if the public defenders are not getting 60% or more, it is a very unequal system. The intended system was to have everyone get a trial as well. Because an accused refuses a plea deal should not penalize a criminal for what could be many years of more prison time. The system is so overwhelmed though it is basically broke.

 

[rjs330]

Prosecutors paid for by taxes handle all prosecutions. Public defenders handle about 60-80%. I would have thought the gap would be much larger. So to me if the public defenders are not getting 60% or more, it is a very unequal system. The intended system was to have everyone get a trial as well. Because an accused refuses a plea deal should not penalize a criminal for what could be many years of more prison time. The system is so overwhelmed though it is basically broke.

Part of that is that you aren't entitled to an attorney for non-jailable offenses. So you don't get a defender for those.

 

[Belk]

Part of that is that you aren't entitled to an attorney for non-jailable offenses. So you don't get a defender for those.

Are you sure of that? I've heard you can even consult a public defender while being detained in some cases. Seems odd you would not get an attorney if you are facing stiff civil penalties.

 

[Pommer]

Are you sure of that? I've heard you can even consult a public defender while being detained in some cases. Seems odd you would not get an attorney if you are facing stiff civil penalties.

There’s advocacy groups and niche organizations that’ll provide legal help on the cheap, but for a simple negligence tort you’re on your own, generally.
But this is a odd little tangent in a thread about how an advocacy group is suing to enforce Idahoans‘ civil rights to due-process because the State decided that public defenders make too much of their taxpayer’s dollars, (or something).

 

[NxNW]

Lack of public defenders means defendants are being denied the right to a speedy trial.

 

[rjs330]

Are you sure of that? I've heard you can even consult a public defender while being detained in some cases. Seems odd you would not get an attorney if you are facing stiff civil penalties.

Each state has its own penalties for various offenses. Most criminal offenses contain jail time as a possible sentencing option. Again depending on the state. It is my understanding the Supreme Court rulings have placed a limit on who is entitled to a public defender. And that is for those who could face jail time. Most states or cities have offenses that don't have jail time for offenses like, running a stop sign or carrying an open container of alcohol or something like that. Since you arent facing jail time then you arent entitled to a public defender.

 

[rjs330]

Lack of public defenders means defendants are being denied the right to a speedy trial.

Not necessarily.

 

[NxNW]

Not necessarily.

If they're not invoking their right to a speedy trial, maybe. But if they do and they don't have a defender, then I don't see how that constitutional right isn't being violated.

 

[rjs330]

If they're not invoking their right to a speedy trial, maybe. But if they do and they don't have a defender, then I don't see how that constitutional right isn't being violated.

Lotta ifs there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe Idaho does things differently than certain other states?

Around here, there's no special pool of public defenders who do just that as a full time job.

There are private attorneys in the area who apply to be part of the "ADC" (appointed defender counsel) program, which covers the county they primarily operate in (and any adjacent counties), and they receive a small fixed monthly amount for basically being "on-call" (plus, an hourly fee for any cases they get put on). My cousin was actually part of it for a few years... The law firm he worked for basically made it a requirement for their lawyers to be part of it for their first two years to give them a broader variety of case-type experience.

So, in my area, the lawyers who act as public defenders aren't relying on public defense work as their primary source of income. (in fact, it's probably only a small percentage of it)

 

[NxNW]

Lotta ifs there.

One is a lot?

 

[durangodawood]

Why are people even bothered about constitutional right for criminals? If the sheriff sees fit to bring you in, youre guilty.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why are people even bothered about constitutional right for criminals? If the sheriff sees fit to bring you in, youre guilty.

They should even thank the sheriff for bringing them in, after all, the sheriff could have settled it once and for all during the arrest.

 

[durangodawood]

......the sheriff could have settled it once and for all during the arrest.

Theres your speedy trial !

 

[Belk]

Each state has its own penalties for various offenses. Most criminal offenses contain jail time as a possible sentencing option. Again depending on the state. It is my understanding the Supreme Court rulings have placed a limit on who is entitled to a public defender. And that is for those who could face jail time. Most states or cities have offenses that don't have jail time for offenses like, running a stop sign or carrying an open container of alcohol or something like that. Since you arent facing jail time then you arent entitled to a public defender.

There’s advocacy groups and niche organizations that’ll provide legal help on the cheap, but for a simple negligence tort you’re on your own, generally.
But this is a odd little tangent in a thread about how an advocacy group is suing to enforce Idahoans‘ civil rights to due-process because the State decided that public defenders make too much of their taxpayer’s dollars, (or something).

Learn something new every day. Thanks.

 

[rjs330]

Why are people even bothered about constitutional right for criminals? If the sheriff sees fit to bring you in, youre guilty.

Kind of a silly take.