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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT