The classic image of the public defender permeates pop culture: a young attorney fresh out of a mediocre law school or a fool, an empty wrinkled suit standing in front of an intimidating judge. On first examination, one might find that this image might have some truth to it: after all, the best things in life aren’t free. But who are the men and women acting as the attorneys for those who could not afford one? Why do we think of them the way we do?
The right to counsel is among the most important in all of American jurisprudence, and is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the modern day. The right to an attorney was not always guaranteed in court, though, and the now-ubiquitous offices of the public defenders are actually quite a recent phenomenon. Before Gideon v. Wainwright, a landmark Supreme Court case, the court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment was that a defendant had the right to an attorney, but the government did not have to give him one. In the state of Florida, where the case originated, the law at the time was that only an indigent person could be provided with a court appointed attorney. The defendant, an impoverished man who broke into a pool hall, was not provided an attorney in his trial, and contested that he had the right to counsel according to the Constitution; the justices ruled unanimously in his favor, establishing the principle that public defenders would have to be appointed to any state-level felony case. This right was later expanded to include misdemeanor charges, and is included in the famous Miranda Warning.
Thus, the Office of the Public Defender became ubiquitous. While the first Office of the Public Defender opened in Los Angeles in 1912, which coincided with the inception of organizations like the National Legal Aid & Defender Association in the early twentieth century, it was not until after Gideon that they became necessary to uphold the Constitution. Today, every jurisdiction has either a dedicated Office of the Public Defender, or otherwise has a roster of attorneys who take cases and are paid by the state for their work. Public defenders are available to defendants during their arraignment, during the trial, and for one appeal–subsequent appeals are not covered and have to be made by a private attorney or by the convict himself. Defenders are typically only available for criminal proceedings or custody hearings, most civil matters are ineligible for public defenders. The public defender for any given jurisdiction is the head administrator of the office, whether it be on the state or county level. There is typically an office on the state level, and subordinate offices in each state of a given county. The amount of attorneys working for local offices depends on the size of the jurisdiction, and the resources thereof. Many offices lack the resources to hire enough attorneys, and commonly have issues with the management of the incredible amounts of cases that any one office might see.
One of the primary issues that court appointed attorneys have is managing their caseloads. In the spirit of saving money, many jurisdictions assign excessive numbers of cases to their public defenders. Often, jurisdictions assign hundreds of cases to an attorney per year, and the time that an attorney can actually spend with each client becomes limited. Public defenders can petition judges for relief if his assignments are so excessive that they constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In the eyes of the law, a public defender may have so many cases that it would be like a client had no attorney at all. In some cases, such as Hurrell-Harring v. New York, civil action is taken against states with consistently overburdened public defense systems. In Hurrell-Harring, the court found that absenteeism among attorneys was more harmful than not having an attorney at all.
Further, prosecutors often have access to many more resources and funding than public defenders, though public attorneys handle the majority of criminal proceedings in many jurisdictions. According to the American Bar Association, “In California, for example, for every dollar spent on prosecution, only 53 cents is spent on indigent defense.” Prosecutors levy their greater resources to their advantage, better utilizing investigative resources and sometimes failing to disclose important discovery information to the defense. This practice often leads to public defenders encouraging their clients to take plea deals, even when confident of their innocence. Considering the strength of the prosecution and the relative weakness of the public defense system, it is often wisest for a defendant to take a plea deal rather than face trial. In federal district courts, ninety-five percent of cases are resolved by guilty plea; it is estimated that above ninety percent of all cases involve processes of plea bargain.
All of this information begs the question: is the spirit of the Sixth Amendment compromised by the public defense system? Routine violations of caseload regulations across the country suggest a fundamental flaw plaguing the system. Some counties have attempted to resolve this problem by privatizing their indigent defense services, but it remains to be seen whether this practice has a positive impact in the long term. The National Legal Aid & Defender Association suggests that federal grants, incentives, and other forms of aid be given to jurisdictions across the country that require more robust public defense offices. While increasing funding may seem an oversimplified solution to a complicated issue, improving the resources available to jurisdictions could help solve caseload problems by enabling the hiring of more attorneys. Until this problem can be properly addressed, it is difficult for defendants to have confidence in a justice system that systematically deprives them of their basic rights to strong and accessible legal representation.