Should states be allowed to charge monthly bills for public defenders?

According to the Supreme Court, people being tried in the US have the right to an attorney, because access to legal representation is necessary in order to allow a fair trial, and that it violates this right to force those who can not afford an attorney to go to trial without one, and so the state is required to provide free representation to anyone who can not afford an attorney.

However, in more than a few states, the state charges monthly bills to people who apply for and receive a public defender, and in Florida, if you do not win your case, meaning if you lose or plea out, you have to pay not only your public defender's fee, but also the prosecution's, as well as any costs to the court itself.

How on earth is it legal to charge anything at all for the use of a constitution right? Why have there not been numerous lawsuits over this?

 

Florida charges $50 dollar just for applying for a public defender. This is a clear case of charging people for the use of a constitutional right. This is illegal in it's own right.

 

What happened to "one will be provided for you"?

 

43 states and the District of Columbia can and often do charge an indigent defendant all or part of the charges for a court appointed attorney.

 

I have a right to bear arms, I don’t see the govt buying me a gun.

Having a right to something doesn’t mean it’s free. The govt does however subsidize your right to a lawyer, if you can’t afford one. Largely because our founders knew how powerful govt can be and having a lawyer is important

Today we see the dems in Congress, ignoring that, and creating a Shifty Star Chamber..it quite sad

 

One can not have a fair trial without proper defense, meaning that if someone is too poor to afford an attorney, they can not receive a fair trial. This was the reasoning behind SCOTUS' ruling that the state must provide a free attorney to anyone who can not afford one.

There is a difference between that and the second amendment. One does not necessarily NEED a gun. You have the right to them, but they are not necessary for every person.

A lawyer IS necessary in order to receive a fair trial. Yes, you can represent yourself in some states, but most people don't have the knowledge needed to build a proper criminal defense. Without a lawyer, a fair trial is often impossible. And if a attorney is necessary for a fair trial,which is a right, access to an attorney is also a right, and it violates this right to say that those who can not afford an attorney gets no representation.

 

Well the constitution provides for that, it wasn’t a scotus case. Scotus actually said you have a right not to have an attorney, people can refuse one

 

1; The right to an attorney was a SCOTUS ruling in the 1960's. It was never part of the constitution.

2; In most states, a judge has to approve a person's decision to represent themselves.

 

6th amendment, and the 14th require that for state charges

It just has to be knowingly and voluntary...then they can waive it...pretty low standard.

But once again, having a right to something doesn’t mean it’s free

 

In more than a few states a person has to prove to a court that they are reasonably capable of representing themselves.

Also, if they do choose to do so, several states require them to waive their right to appeal, except on grounds of unethical conduct on the state's dehalf.

 

No it’s just freely and voluntary.

No you don’t waive your right to appeal if you go pre se...

 

Having the right to an attorney does not mean, as others have noted, that it's going to be free. It simply means you do have the right to get one if you want. The lack of that right means you're just going to be walked into a courtroom alone, and any lawyers you might have retained just aren't going to be allowed in to defend you.

 

You have a right to a attorney, and no wheres does it say that it shall be free.

"State provided" doesn't mean free.

 

Is that different from what the Miranda warning says?

 

Nope. The Miranda is just a crash course in the constitutional rights of somebody who has been arrested.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

As you can see, it says that one will be appointed if you can't afford a lawyer. This does not say that it's free.

 

It implies it.

 

I don't like it. They have absolutely no control of whether or when or how much they need this service. The state forces this cost on them with the charge. It provides an incredible tactical advantage for the state if they can push both the legal hours and investigatory hours up on the defendant and drive them deeper into debt to force a plea deal.

Legal aide is one of the few budgets that some marginal bipartisan support. We need to do better, not worse.

 

You know what they say about that and a cup of coffee. If you're going to try to read implications into the law, you can try arguing that in front of a judge, I guess. My prediction is that you're not going to get very far with that.

 

I must be wrong then.