Gideon V. Wainwright Summary

Imagine getting a ticket and deciding not to pay the fine by the deadline. The court will issue a notice for you to pay for it or you will be charged for misdemeanor. You have the option to go to court and if you can’t afford a private lawyer, then the court will assign you a public defender, or a lawyer appointed by the court of no cost to you.Your right to have a lawyer and a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”).
Fifty years after the ruling, public attorneys have been under scrutiny by both lawyers and clients.

Said counsels are known for facing underfunding and unmanageable caseloads, while their clients claim that they are poorly represented in court. It is evident that increasing funding for criminal defense attorneys will resolve the issue by helping alleviate the mounting cases as more are hired by the state.
With a public defense lawyer, defendants do not have to pay for their services because they are paid for with taxes. However, governments allocate more funds on prosecution than on the latter (“Five Problems Facing Public Defense on the 40th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright”). In other words, these lawyers are paid less resulting in limited access to resources in order properly handle a case. When reviewing a lawsuit, former Miami public defender, Arthur Jones, had to rely on police reports rather than conducting his own investigation to provide an adequate defense for his client (Eckholm). Depending on a report is not enough, independent investigations and understanding the full context of the lawsuit are vital to making a strong case for the defendant to prove their innocence.
In addition to lack of funds, many criminal defense attorneys receive either full or no training on how to handle cases. To resolve the issue, the public defense system is designed to train attorneys on how to properly represent their client (Mosher). Cases like Terrence Miller’s say otherwise. Charged with drug dealing, the lawyer Miller was assigned has not fought a drug case in seven years (Cohen). With decreasing funds, more defense attorneys – especially newer ones – are more susceptible to receive insufficient training compared to their senior counterparts, indicating a huge problem in how public defense attorneys handle their cases.
Unfortunately, public counsel is notorious for the large amounts of lawsuits taken every year.

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals set a limit that each criminal defense attorney can take 150 felony cases per year, but “caseloads of 500, 600, 800, or more are common” (“Five Problems”). With that, criminal defense attorneys are forced to triage or reject cases, leaving potential clients to go to court without representation. If the defendant does have a public attorney, their defense is unprepared and vulnerable to make mistakes when working out a reasonable sentence. In one of his cases, Jones and his client accepted a deal with the prosecution for a three year sentence for stealing locks. Upon further investigation, the prosecution discovered that they made a mistake in calculating the minimum sentence – Jones’s client should have only served “366 days,” but it was already too late (Eckholm).
Now, this brings into question if public defenders are ethically competent to represent their client in court with such a workload. The Supreme Court states that if the criminal defense attorney does not review each lawsuit they receive with sufficient time and resources dedicated to each client “then both the system and the attorney are in breach of their ethical and constitutional obligations to that defendant” (Mosher). In other words, the lawyer assigned is not allowed to handle a case if they are forced to spend more time on one over the others

because it violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Despite the issues criminal defense lawyers have to face, the most affected in the process are defendants. Since their lawyers are assigned, the accused cannot file a request to have a new one and “a fair trial is almost impossible without proper legal representation” (“Your Right to a Free Attorney If You Are Charged With a Crime”). In short, the defendant is stuck with whoever is assigned to them.
Moreover, the quality of representation differs in each lawsuit because of how lawyers are assigned. The defendant receives their appointed counsel either by the one who “happens to be assigned to the courtroom in which a defendant’s case is heard … [or they are] assigned to each stage of the case” (Berman and Berman). That is to say, the accused is not able to meet with their lawyer until the day the case is presented in court. Terrence Miller, for instance, was charged for dealing drugs and “met his lawyer for the first time for a few minutes in a stairwell at the courthouse on the morning of trial” (Cohen). Failing to meet his client, the public defender is forced to make an impromptu defense or, more commonly, pressure his client to plead guilty and negotiate a lesser sentence. Without a doubt, this is a violation of ethical procedures on handling lawsuits and the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.
All of these factors: underfunding, impossible caseloads, and poor representation, contribute to the general idea that criminal defense attorneys are useless in court.

A study found that public defenders have an “average sentence … [that] was almost three years longer than the average for clients of private lawyers” (Hoffman). In addition, the same study found that most criminal defendants are “marginally indigent,” or afford to hire a private lawyer with their friends and family pitching in to pay the costs (Hoffman). As a result, the accused opt for hiring a private lawyer to represent them in court. This doesn’t mean that a private lawyer could secure a win for the defendant, with more time and resources dedicated, a stronger argument could be made to prove the defendant’s

innocence.
Undoubtedly, the public defense system must be fixed so that even those who cannot and can barely afford a private lawyer will be able to receive proper representation without the need to pay a fortune. Increasing funding would improve the services provided by public defenders, especially with spending more time on performing legal research and have ample information to defend their client more effectively. In addition, more lawyers will be hired into the public defense office and help lessen the caseload to managable numbers. This will give a chance for the attorney and client to meet in person and discuss their defense strategy.