A recent New York Times article discusses two proposed solutions to what is seen as a residual problem stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. In that case, the Court held that the poor, accused of serious crimes, are entitled to lawyers paid for by the government. However, the Court was silent on how the lawyers should be chosen. According to the article, this has resulted in a public defender system in which (1) lawyers have conflicting incentives and (2) clients have no choices.
Two solutions, in select areas of Washington State and Texas, propose different approaches to these issues.
The approach in Washington is focused on supervision and oversight of the public defender service. A federal judge appointed a monitor to oversee the public defender services in two cities, Mount Vernon and Burlington. According to the Times article, this is intended to prevent what has come to be referred to as a “meet and plead” system where overloaded attorneys often meet their clients for the first time in the courtroom.
On the other hand, the approach in Comal County, Texas is based on free-market principles. A pilot program, which will start in the fall, will give indigent criminal defendants their choice of counsel to give them more control over their relationship with their attorney. This approach will operate alongside the existing court appointed system for defendants who do not want to choose their own attorney.
