No lawyers for poor gilty peeple!
Not far from our home in downtown Phoenix there used to be a dingy little bar called La Amapola. It was a dark and dank place frequented by the down and out, and not known for much except one thing: on January 31, 1976,
Ernesto Miranda had his chest slit open during a bar fight and bled to death on the way to the hospital. Today the bar is gone and the area is an entertainment district—science museum, basketball arena and baseball stadium. Play ball!
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the start of the famous Miranda v Arizona case, named after the same man. In June 1963, then 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda, who was born in Mesa, Arizona, and spent his short life in and out of detention, was convicted of raping a young woman. However, because the Phoenix police tricked a confession out of Miranda, and did not tell him about his right to an attorney, the case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1966 ruled 5-4 in Miranda's favor. He was set free and the Court mandated that law officers read the "Miranda Rights" to everyone they detain. Follow me below the fold and learn how the sequester could change all that.
After his release, Ernesto Miranda continued a life of petty crime, often autographing Miranda Cards for $1.50, only to meet his fate in a local bar after an argument over a few coins. The man who cut open his chest was never found, while his accomplice was read his Miranda Rights, refused to testify and the case was dropped. A friend of mine who worked on the Supreme Court argument as a young lawyer said Ernesto Miranda was a genuine and guilty sleezeball, but the larger point was constitutional rights, not one man. Today the Phoenix Police Museum, itself not far from the bar where Miranda was stabbed, and located in the same building where he confessed, houses an exhibit celebrating the 50th anniversary of the landmark case.
Another Supreme Court case that'll be 50 years old this week is Gideon v Wainwright, which stems from a Florida robbery in which the defendant did not have an attorney. Gideon, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 1963, found that everyone, even the poor or those who do not know their rights, has a right to representation; and if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for them. Miranda and Gideon would be joined at the hip when your constitutional right to counsel found its way into the warning:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
Gideon jumpstarted and expanded the position of public defender, who are some of the most overworked people in the legal system, according to a story in today's
Arizona Republic.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the opinion, believed the decision was the most important he rendered in the court, said Larry Hammond, a Phoenix attorney who served as a law clerk for Black.
Hammond said the system has since fallen short of the promise the decision offered.
"I have mixed feelings about it," Hammond said, noting the unrealistic workloads and lack of resources that tie the hands of public defenders at all levels. "It breaks my heart a little bit that we’re not better off, but I love the public defenders. What they're doing is God's work."
Here in Maricopa County, Arizona, about 80 percent of defendants are represented by a public defender, and the workload is only increasing. In 2001, the federal public defender's office in Arizona handled 5,500 cases; last year the number spiked to 12,000—many a result of the nation's war on drugs. Constitutional scholar Paul Bender said the extreme workload is already causing problems:
"In a principled way, everybody would agree, I think, that people—regardless of whether they have money or not—are entitled to an adequate defense. If public defenders are swamped the way they are, that means that it's going to be impossible for some people to get an adequate defense. That can lead to innocent people being convicted. It also leads to plea bargains of cases that shouldn't be plea-bargained," he said.
With the sequester, it's about to get worse. Maricopa County recently laid off 10 staff members from the public defender's office, including six lawyers, because of the budget battle in Washington. A recent story in
The Atlantic provides numerous examples of courts at federal and state levels that are already being squeezed by hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts:
Federal trial judges are quietly seething at the inability of the legislative and executive branches to avoid sequester. Federal public defenders, whose budgets have been cut twice in two months, are furloughing and laying off staff. The attorney general of the United States has expressed grave concern on behalf of prosecutors and federal law enforcement officials. And court administrators are expressing alarm over the effect of the cuts upon federal judicial services.
The thousands of expected furloughs and layoffs go beyond lawyers, to mental health experts, court security, stenographers, investigators and translators. Once again, the people hurt by the sequester are those who can
literally least afford it—the poor, especially defendants who do not speak English. Justice denied. In addition to backlogged courts, the budget cuts can lead to less safe communities, a point border agents are already making. However, according to the comments section in today's
Arizona Republic, a veritable swamp of festering hate, the looming layoffs are a gift-wrapped present for tea party goobers. To paraphrase:
Don't commit a crime and you won't be arrested! Taxpayers' money should not be used to defend criminals! Everyone should pay for their own defense! Public defenders only try to get guilty people off!
In their selfish world, constitutional protections mean nothing until
they're in a scrape, everyone is guilty until proven otherwise (on their own dime), and police and prosecutors never make mistakes. Many on the right simply are
incapable of empathy—for women, people of color, the poor, gays and lesbians, veterans, the disabled,
and those accused of a crime. This story shines an even brighter light on their heartlessness.