ILNews

Blomquist: Gideon at 50 is A Work in Progress

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerry2013 marks the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established that under the Constitution, states are required to provide a lawyer to criminally charged defendants who cannot otherwise afford one. The Gideon ruling is rightfully celebrated as an important legal victory, but I am not alone when I suggest we still have promises to keep, 50 years later.

Despite substantial changes to our criminal justice system since Gideon, state and federal governments have still not committed the funding necessary for public defenders to keep pace with the rising flood of criminal cases. The much-touted “War on Crime” of the 1980s resulted in record-breaking arrests that were not met with a system realistically prepared to offer justice to all. Bankrolling the War on Crime was easy enough but when time came to fund indigent defense, our leaders got squeamish and shortsighted and failed to realize a basic fact: the cost of indigent defense is part of the cost of criminal justice.

According to the Justice Policy Institute, over the last 25 years spending on public defense has remained far below other criminal justice expenditures. For every dollar spent on public defense, we spend nearly $14 on corrections and $20 on police protection. And the results are getting pretty obvious.

Today, we live in an era of mass incarceration, caused in part by this broken promise. The United States leads the world in number of people in prison. After 40 years of the War on Drugs and “tough on crime” policies combined with the routine denial of effective legal representation for poor defendants, there are currently 2.3 million people behind bars—nearly half for nonviolent crimes. THAT is expensive at over $30,000 per inmate, per year…yet we also spend less on public defense as a percentage per capita than every single European nation. Coincidence? I think not.

According to the American Bar Association, 70 to 90 percent of criminal defendants qualify for publicly funded attorneys today; that is a far cry from the 40 percent of Gideon days. Caseloads are exorbitant, with today’s public defenders carrying upwards of 300 cases at a time. Issues are more complex, needing investigation, scientific testing and more extensive discovery. Juries are made up of the “CSI” generation now, so they want it all and they want it now with little regard to cost. And finally, public defender positions tend to be underpaid so they attract less experienced lawyers. The result is, in this author’s opinion, the lack of time, training, resources and support these lawyers need to consistently put their best foot forward; to offer justice as promised and to fulfill the promise of Gideon.

One solid and commanding voice in this discussion has been my former law school dean, Former Dean and Professor of Law Norman Lefstein, who has both studied and worked this issue for decades. In his 2011 book, “Securing Reasonable Caseloads: Ethics and Law in Public Defense,” Lefstein notes that we have a moral and ethical duty to draw a line in the sand and “just say no” to compromising the quality of legal representation because of outrageous caseloads.

Gideon’s 50th birthday has set Congress atwitter as well, literally and figuratively, with the introduction of legislation that would require states to use existing federal funds to improve the administration of criminal justice in strategic ways. This would include providing for adequate training, compensation and support for public defenders. The Gideon’s Promise Act of 2013 would hold states accountable for providing effective representation to criminal defendants, because to do less than that risks the very freedom of those we have promised to protect.

Earlier this month, I was fortunate to represent this bar association in a federal district court naturalization hearing held for the first time at Shortridge Magnet School on Law and Public Policy. While these ceremonies are always moving, this one was particularly near and dear to my heart because it was the culmination of nearly a year of planning to create the perfect storm. On that day, in that auditorium, 83 people from more than 40 countries were sworn in as new U.S. citizens by Federal District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, in full view of a student body comprising young people impatient to work for justice.

It was a beautiful thing and a vivid reminder that America is still the “destination capital of the world” for those looking for opportunity, equality, and freedom. Truth is, all over this country immigrants are willing to renounce any and all allegiance to their birth country to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America; to fight and die in our wars; to pay our taxes; and to peacefully assimilate in this melting pot of society. In short, to live in “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” Let’s not forget our promise to them.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT