3 ms·

> actually available Define "actually available" Most public defenders offices are so oversubscribed and underfunded that they can't really provide good repre

by lambda 11y ago

> actually available Define "actually available" Most public defenders offices are so oversubscribed and underfunded that they can't really provide good representation for the majority of their clients.

_delirium 11y ago
That sounds like a different argument: that the current public-defender system operates so poorly that the result violates the 6th amendment by failing to provide effective counsel. But the proper remedy there would be to issue an injunction ordering the system to be improved, not to unfreeze certain defendants' assets, since the latter would leave the 6th amendment violation uncured in the case of defendants who don't have assets in the first place. The current case seems to be arguing something different: that freezing defendant's assets that they could use to pay for counsel is a 6th amendment violation even assuming an effective public-defender system. That requires a separate right, something like: the right to pay for the best defense you can afford. Afaict, this is at the Supreme Court because they've never ruled either way on whether the 6th amendment includes such a right; the previous cases have focused on the minimum threshold for what constitutes effective assistance of counsel.
bayesianhorse 11y ago
It doesn't say anywhere that a public defender has to be effective.
- eximius 11y ago
  On the one hand, it'd be absurd if it did. On the other, it would often come in handy.
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  The text of the amendment doesn't say so explicitly, but Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is grounds for overturning convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_coun... (Note that the standard requires both that your counsel was ineffective, and that his/her ineffectiveness caused your conviction)
jkestner 11y ago
Generally against asset forfeiture, but if they're going to do it, maybe using it only to fund public defenders for all would balance out the incentive for the government to seize the money in the first place.
gnoway 11y ago
That is why I qualified it w/ 'actually'. I'm aware of what's going on.

by lambda 11y ago

_delirium 11y ago

That sounds like a different argument: that the current public-defender system operates so poorly that the result violates the 6th amendment by failing to provide effective counsel. But the proper remedy there would be to issue an injunction ordering the system to be improved, not to unfreeze certain defendants' assets, since the latter would leave the 6th amendment violation uncured in the case of defendants who don't have assets in the first place. The current case seems to be arguing something different: that freezing defendant's assets that they could use to pay for counsel is a 6th amendment violation even assuming an effective public-defender system. That requires a separate right, something like: the right to pay for the best defense you can afford. Afaict, this is at the Supreme Court because they've never ruled either way on whether the 6th amendment includes such a right; the previous cases have focused on the minimum threshold for what constitutes effective assistance of counsel.

bayesianhorse 11y ago

It doesn't say anywhere that a public defender has to be effective.

eximius 11y ago
On the one hand, it'd be absurd if it did. On the other, it would often come in handy.
jdminhbg 11y ago
The text of the amendment doesn't say so explicitly, but Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is grounds for overturning convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_coun... (Note that the standard requires both that your counsel was ineffective, and that his/her ineffectiveness caused your conviction)

jkestner 11y ago

Generally against asset forfeiture, but if they're going to do it, maybe using it only to fund public defenders for all would balance out the incentive for the government to seize the money in the first place.

gnoway 11y ago

That is why I qualified it w/ 'actually'. I'm aware of what's going on.