Legal News

Is Gideon Alive and Well? New York Case Says Absolutely Not

By Ashby Jones

As most 1Ls know, the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright established that in the event a criminal defendant cannot afford an attorney, a state has an obligation to provide one for the accused.

But how good does that attorney have to be? And is the spirit of Gideon truly being upheld in situations in which “poorly trained” and “poorly supervised” lawyers — in the words of this NYT article — are overwhelmed with their ever-growing caseloads?

Civil liberties groups from around the country are saying no, that the indigent are not getting what they have a right to under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

So, naturally, they’re suing. One such suit, filed in 2007, has made its way up to New York’s Court of Appeals; next week, that court will hear arguments over whether the case should be allowed to proceed.

One of the named plaintiffs in the case claimed that an upstate New York public defender did, in the NYT’s words, “little for her but pressure her to plead guilty after a felony arrest for trying to sneak marijuana to her husband, who was in prison.” Others said that their lawyers “were overwhelmed with cases and failed to investigate or make basic legal arguments.”

The state argues that it’s fulfilled its constitutional obligations. "It cannot be seriously contended that plaintiffs have been denied the right to counsel," the state wrote, in a pleading.

Interestingly, the Times writes, the case has split law enforcement. Some prosecutors argue that the case overstates the problems with public defender programs.

But Corey Stoughton of the Civil Liberties Union, the lead lawyer in the case, said the government never made the adequate representation of indigents a political priority. As a result, defendants too often face the pressure to plead guilty, says Stoughton.

“For decades,” she said, “the State of New York has been on notice that the public defense system is in crisis and fails to meet basic constitutional responsibilities."

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 16, 2010 (boomark / email).