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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT