By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
The Seattle Times reports on the expected financial impact on local governments of new case limits for public defenders – attorneys appointed to represent poor defendants – imposed by the state Supreme Court.
“Beginning in September 2013, public defenders should not handle more than 300 to 400 misdemeanor cases or 150 felony cases a year, limits designed to make sure the lawyers have enough time to devote to their clients and ensure those defendants are getting their constitutional right to an attorney, Gene Johnson of The Associated Press writes in the Seattle Times.
Read more here
“Dirty Cop Enforcer” wrote “I never stole them to begain with. The Centralia Police were just pissed off because I pissed in their Centralio’s… ”
Famous words of denial. “I didn’t do it, they’re just mad at me” or “They set me up…” or something else along those lines.
How about the REAL truth, now?
I think it is complacent and irresponsible to assume all humans are 100% pure and uncorruptable. We need checks and balances in every venue that puts our liberty and safety at risk. I do believe there are dirty cops, judges, prosecutors and defenders… along with some who will go the extra mile, work late, charge less and give more. Heck, sometimes, those qualities exist within the same person.
I sat in court and watched a public defender ‘counsel’ his client … in court. She was whispering to him (loudly, I was in the first row of the audience) that she wanted to plead not-guilty and he told her to ‘shut up’ or he was not going to represent her. I could tell she was in there for a drug charge of some sort, but I couldn’t tell if he was admonishing her because she was negatively affecting her own case… or if he was just tired of her.
Perhaps the limits will allow a better job done with the indigent clients… that is my hope. And I agree, it will likely mean longer time frames for all proceedings… in which case, more attorneys may be the best answer.
The Prosecutor himself actually has very little to do with the actual case. That is what is deputies are for…
To “Commoncents” I was incarcerated for an allegged theft of sand bags last year. I blocked Judge Buzzard from over seeing my case, since he was my attorney in another incident. This is called a conflict of interest. In the Judicial system its called common sense.. And no I was not charged with the theft of the sand bags. I never stole them to begain with. The Centralia Police were just pissed off because I pissed in their Centralio’s… As a Defendent you are afforded certain rights and when an attorney violates these rights this is a serious problem…..Jonathan Meyer needs to step away from clients that he’s represented in the past. And in fact that Meyer is the lead prosecutor, one could ask for a change of Venue…Defendents have rights Too…… Guilty or Not….
This was something I wondered about because Jon WAS a defense attorney before becoming county prosecutor. How would prior “inside” knowledge that came via attorney-client privilege affect a later case involving the same defendant with Jon now at the other table before a judge? Prior arrests and convictions may not be admissible during new trials, but who knows? That’s up to the judges.
Seems like recusing himself would be wise in cases in which Jon’s office is prosecuting his former clients. I think given who he replaced and the budgetary limits he’s working within, Jonathan Meyer’s doing mostly a decent job, but that this question should arise comes as no surprise to me.
Wait, so because Mr. Meyer was a defense attorney he now can’t be the Prosecutor?!?!
I guess we better let everybody out then…
Jonathan Meyer is convicting people he used to represent. In specefic I am refering to Lewis County Cause 101005778… Michale Wayne Kelly was convicted by Mr. Meyer and was Mr Kelly’s private attorney before he became a Prosecutor…..Looks Like More Kangaroo Court Officials in Charge of corruption….Mr. Meyer is now trying to Convict him once again, but not if I can help it………..
@ Roger8176: Your appointed defense attorney by law has to follow through with there defendants wishes or they will be held accountable, they could even lose their jobs so you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And as for having limitations on cases, it’s going to make it take longer for trials since there are only so many attorneys and more cases than they would be able to handle since our area is full of a bunch of dirt bags. Soon there will be the issue of not getting them a speedy trial…
This is what happens when you have over-aggressive police departments out there looking to bust everybody who they come into contact with. I can think of so many cases where a friend or somebody I know has had to have a public pretender….I mean public defender who does almost nothing to lookout for their clients’ legal interests. They just go along with whatever the prosecutor says and thats it.
God forbid you actually want to take a case to trial, which last I knew was your constitutional right. You will be told by the judge, prosecutor, and your public defender that you WILL get the maximum sentence if you try it. To me that sounds like a threat, but what can you do?
Obviously you shouldn’t be out there breaking the law, but many of these arrests aren’t 100% legal either. I know of plenty of cases where the police flat out lie to get the arrest which leads to a conviction. Unfortunately there is no easy answer, but in my opinion a defendants rights shouldn’t be getting trampled on regular basis like they are and I think the framers of the Constitution (remember that thing?) would agree and they were much wiser men than we are today.
To start with, getting personal legal representation from a hired attorney shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg like it does these days. Usually it is $5000 to $7000 to even retain a real attorney and to me that is criminal, but if you want to have a chance at being treated fairly in the courtroom that is what you have to do.
No, the Supreme Court didn’t think of that. They don’t care about things like that (unless it is a union case, of course…).
knowing our govenrment.. i am sure they didnt even think of THAT ! @ “raising the pay then.?” interesting name
I hope the Supreme court has figured out a way to raise the pay for these indigent cases, if they are going to limit the amount of work a PD can do.