NWA editorial: A constitutional defense

State must back a strong public defender system

"Across the country, public defender offices and other indigent defense providers are underfunded and understaffed. Too often, when legal representation is available to the poor, it's rendered less effective by insufficient resources, overwhelming caseloads, and inadequate oversight. ... Millions of Americans still struggle to access the legal services that they need and deserve -- and to which they are constitutionally entitled."

Eric Holder

What’s the point?

Arkansas lawmakers must promote a health system of public defenders to ensure the judicial system functions in a constitutional manner.

U.S. attorney general

Feb. 4, 2012

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are often quick to cite the First Amendment in protecting their right to express their views or the Second Amendment when it comes to arming themselves for hunting or personal defense. Go deeper and it gets a little tougher for most of us to, off the tops of our heads, declare the other rights enumerated by that historic and ever-important document.

Third Amendment? Who can remember that one? And how often today do we have to defend against government trying to quarter soldiers in our homes?

But consider the next five amendments in the Bill of Rights: Prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures; rules for indictment and eminent domain, along with rights to due process and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy; the right to a trail by jury; and a bar on excessive fines and bail as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Gee, do you think our Founding Fathers knew a little something about a government that tramples on the rights of its people through the courts? Fully half of the Bill of Rights demanded a high standard for government action that can result in a loss of liberty or property.

Incredibly, it wasn't until 1963 that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gideon vs. Wainwright, confirmed that the practice of letting poore criminal defendants fend for themselves in court, without attorneys, was unconstitutional. How, the court surmised, could the Constitution's guarantee of a fair trial be carried out if an individual is left without an attorney -- a trained and educated professional in the law -- to aid him?

Justice Hugo Blagg explained that "reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him."

Anyone who has watched as a criminal defendant represents himself knows the truth of the adage "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." It's excruciatingly painful, because the rules of the courts require a high degree of specificity in how questions are asked and objections are made.

So, in our nation, when a defendant is too poor to afford his own attorney, the Constitution provides that he will be appointed one. Today, however, whether that guarantees a fair trail and adequate representation is an open question in Arkansas and many other states.

Members of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, meeting in Hot Springs last week, said the state's indigent system faces a "crisis" because those attorneys over overwhelmed with heavy caseloads and inadequate budgets. The situation begs the question: Can an overburdened system of attorneys provide adequate representation of clients?

At some point, the answer is no. The political debate is focused on where that point is.

Unfortunately, more than a few people -- including some in the Arkansas General Assembly -- look at public defenders as aiding and abetting the enemy. It galls them, and some of their constituents, that taxpayers dollars must pay for the defense of those who, on the other hand, the state is spending taxpayer dollars to prosecute.

Lawyers aren't part of the judicial system simply to get guilty people out of trouble. Certainly nobody suggests everyone in our courts system is innocent. But they do stand innocent until the state proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And as our Founding Fathers established, doing so must overcome a high standard of proof. Each person accused deserves a fair shot at adjudication in a system designed to deliver what we would all want if in their shoes -- as much fairness as humanly possible.

Lawmakers must pay attention. They should examine hiring more public defenders, but also re-examine laws that throw people into the courts when diversion to mental health or drug addiction treatment will prove more effective. Public defenders should be well trained and monitored to ensure they zealously and effectively represent their clients.

Our judicial system is stronger when public defenders, along with private defense attorneys, demand all its other components -- investigators, judges, prosecutors -- fulfill their roles within constitutional boundaries. They represent a check on the abuse of government power, and our Founding Fathers would be proud of that.

Commentary on 06/25/2016

Upcoming Events