Middletown vs. Moeller
Pyramid Hill light show preparation
Were you spotted tailgating?
Home > Blogs > Butler County News and Issues > Archives > 2008 > July > 31 > Entry
Letter from the Ohio Public Defender
As the debate continues about a plan to restructure the public defender system in Butler County, here is more on the Ohio Public Defender’s view of the situation.
Public Defender Tim Young argued against the plan in a letter to, among others, former county auditor Kay Rogers (who he apparently thought was still auditor). Read that story here.
For more on the issue, read Dave Greber’s blogs below.
Read the rest of this blog for the full text of Young’s letter. And the letter was followed by this summation of the American Bar Association’s principals, which Young says the plan could run afoul of:
And now the letter:
Mary Catherine Rogers, Butler County Auditor 130 High Street, 4th Floor Hamilton, OH 45011
RE: Indigent Defense
Change in Attorney Selection
Dear Auditor Rogers:
An article in today’s Middletown Journal outlines a new system for providing indigent defense services in Butler County that is being promoted by the Judiciary. Based on the information in the newspaper article, it appears the proposed system cannot be approved by the state and will not qualify for reimbursement dollars.
The fundamental premise of an attorney-client relationship is that the attorney have loyalty only to the client’s interests. The American Bar Association has created a list of 10 principles to be adhered to in any indigent defense system. The very first, and presumably most important, of the ABA’s principles is that “the public defense function, including the selection, funding, and payment of defense counsel is independent.” This principle has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Improving Criminal Justice Through Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations: A Report of the National Symposium on Indigent Defense; NLADA, In Defense of Public Access to Justice.
If an attorney is hand picked by a judge to service all of the cases in front of the judge, and if the attorney is compensated through a contract approved by the judge, and if the attorney’s continued employment is conditioned upon the judge’s satisfaction with the attorney, there is more than a fair chance that the attorney will be in a position, whether intended or not, that loyalties will be compromised between the judge and client.
Policy makers should guarantee to the public that critical decisions regarding whether a case should go to trial, whether to advise a client to plead guilty, whether motions should be filed on a client’s behalf, or whether witnesses should be cross-examined are based solely on the factual merits of the case and not on the attorney’s desire to please the judiciary to maintain a contract.
The Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code direct the acceptable delivery systems to provide competent and independent representation to indigent defendants and have the state contribute to part of the cost. There are “hybrid systems” available that will meet reimbursement standards. The plan, as outlined in the newspaper, is not one of them. Not only will the county lose reimbursement money, but the cost of appeals and post-conviction matters may also jump significantly.
Butler County already has a public defender commission and contracts with a not-for-profit corporation to provide services in Juvenile Court in a hybrid-type system. The Ohio Public Defender Office is more than willing to help in the design of a system that would not only save the taxpayers money in the long run, but that will provide quality representation by an attorney whose first loyalty is to the client and who will not risk being compromised in his loyalties to the judge that controls his/her contract. Please contact Kathryn Smith for further assistance.
Sincerely,
Tim Young
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Crime and courts
Comments
By Shabash K. Morton
August 9, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Exactly! It’s not like criminal defendants can chime in on this subject. The attorneys that practice in Butler County have been very “newspaper” mum on this subject, while words from the judiciary, in support of the proposal, can be read in the pages of the Journals every other day. Of course, if the Journals are only reporting one side of the story… There should not be a “salaried relationship” between a client’s criminal attorney and the judge presiding over his/her case. In doing so, you put into question whether the legal representation of the client, and the judiciary’s ability to judge the facts of the case, were impacted by the employer-employee relationship.