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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT