Re: Affording an attorney...
At 06:32 PM 04/04/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Note that there's NO stipulation about 'if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed to you'. Whether you're rich or poor the state is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
There's not only no stipulation about whether you can afford counsel, there's no stipulation about the government paying for counsel, or about counsel having to be a licensed or trained attorney. It only says you're allowed to HAVE counsel. The business about the government paying for an attorney for you is based on the Supreme Court's *interpretation* of this amendment concluding that the right to bring counsel with you is pretty lame if you can't afford to pay counsel, and that therefore the government ought to pay for counsel for the indigent. There's also no right to insist that the government provide you with *good* counsel - public defenders have a reputation of providing service quality similar to government-funded health care, at best idealistic until they get too jaded, but the competent ones are overworked to the point that you still don't get great support. If you want to argue about assistance of counsel in cases like Jim Bell's, you're better off trying to argue that counsel should "assist", not "hinder", and that people who don't want the negative assistance of counsel that doesn't do what they want should be allowed to dump their PD, not be told that only the PD and not they themselves have the right to speak. (A quick read of Declan's description of one day of the trial sounded like Bell's counsel was trying to help, perhaps competently, and helping Bell is a tough job for anybody....)
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:28:22PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
(A quick read of Declan's description of one day of the trial sounded like Bell's counsel was trying to help, perhaps competently, and helping Bell is a tough job for anybody....)
I think that's a fair description of Day I. By Day II, though, Leen seemed to miss some obvious (to me) technical questions that could be raised on cross. I also had the change to watch him more closely, and he seems to be doing a perfunctory job. He's almost communicating to the jury (and clearly communicating to the judge) that he believes his client is guilty but has the right to a trial. -Declan
At 10:23 AM 4/5/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:28:22PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
(A quick read of Declan's description of one day of the trial sounded like Bell's counsel was trying to help, perhaps competently, and helping Bell is a tough job for anybody....)
I think that's a fair description of Day I. By Day II, though, Leen seemed to miss some obvious (to me) technical questions that could be raised on cross. I also had the change to watch him more closely, and he seems to be doing a perfunctory job. He's almost communicating to the jury (and clearly communicating to the judge) that he believes his client is guilty but has the right to a trial.
Well. As long as Bell gets his fair trial before he's taken out and shot, it'll all be ok then. Summarily, Reese
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Reese