5 ms·

Some interesting discussion is happening over on MetaFilter[1]. The uninformed opinion is that this is a great publicity stunt, but probably won't stand as the

by aftbit 10y ago

Some interesting discussion is happening over on MetaFilter[1]. The uninformed opinion is that this is a great publicity stunt, but probably won't stand as the Governor is technically the head of prosecution and would therefore have a conflict of interest with every case. 1: http://www.metafilter.com/161399/Missouri-governor-appointed-as-a-public-defender-to-an-indigent http://www.metafilter.com/161399/Missouri-governor-appointed...

DannyBee 10y ago
Well, remember depending on the ethics rules of the state, the conflict may be waivable by the client :)
maxerickson 10y ago
It's interesting that so many people over there think this will be terrible for his career. His background is also interesting: http://www.mobar.org/esq/mar27/michael-barrett.htm http://www.mobar.org/esq/mar27/michael-barrett.htm His wife is the Executive Director of the Missouri Bar and he used to be a deputy lawyer in the governor's office. This could easily be a first step towards running for an elected position.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  It's entirely political. Else he'd have also sent letters to members of the bar in MO's general Assembly which is equally if not more to blame for the current situation. (And is, IME, a ridiculous embarrassment to the state...)
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    I'm sure he's got more cases to assign. If, after the inevitable delaying tactics, he can actually force the governor to do this, he'll have many more letters to send, and precedent will have been set. (At least, until the new legislative session starts in January.)
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds, specifically to hire more ad litems in child abuse cases (the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the child directly). For some reason the governor's office has withheld $3.5 million of those funds (apparently that's a power the MO governor has?).
    - hga 10y ago
      It is, and I think it's rather common for states, and he's usually used it responsibly to keep the state's finances semi-sane. Don't know about this example, though. The US president used to be able to do this, Thomas Jefferson was the first in 1801 per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...), and it continued to help keep the US Federal budget a bit sane until in 1974 when the Nixon excuse was used, as it was for so much else, to completely change the way we did budgeting (and much else, like campaign financing, the primary system, etc.). As someone who's been there for the before and after, this was not an improvement, something that's going to be brought forcefully to everyone's attention when e.g. we are no longer viewed as the least worst place to stash your wealth.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds ...and also cut $60M in tax revenue without matching spending cuts, taking the political win of lower taxes while forcing the governor to choose between screwing the state Kansas-style or else taking the political fall-out for spending cuts. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's all theater, and you're being duped if you think the legislature isn't at least equally responsible for MO's under-funding of p much everything. > apparently that's a power the MO governor has? Yes, it's actually for more common than not in state governments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States#Governors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
  - superuser2 10y ago
    The letter states that the legislature approved funding; the governor vetoed it.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      The legislature approved funding but also passed $60M in tax breaks without matching spending cuts. Nixon then cut this (and 130 other) budget line items in an attempt to balance the now-much-smaller budget [1]. The legislature is just as complicit in the current situation as Nixon. You don't get to slash taxes and then complain that it's someone else's fault that there's no money for critical programs. [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-new-money-for-public-defenders-in-missouri-as-governor/article_3962607e-b4cf-586b-b491-f18d7c6f96a7.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-ne...
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Would you happen to have a roll call for those who voted for the tax cuts?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  I think he's got my vote. I'm always glad to vote for someone who's not a prosecutor. Seeing Hawley win the AG nomination yesterday was almost enough to make up for the "I'm not a politician but I like to blow shit up" mini-Trump winning the governor nomination. After two terms of a Democrat governor, Missourians will feel like a change, so I expect that goofball to win easily. I was not aware of the ridiculous budget cuts to the PD office. I'll be contacting my legislators...
  - exabrial 10y ago
    I haven't followed the Hawley story, not a resident. Are there objective criticisms of him? Frankly I'm happy to see more independent leaning candidates take office and weaken to the two moronic parties.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      The Hawley-Schaefer contest was notable for its inventively awful attack ads. My biggest criticism of Hawley would be the millions of dollars he accepted from unknown parties to run those ads, so it isn't clear how independent he is. Schaefer criticized Hawley for writing amicus curiae briefs for "accused terrorists", but I think that's a perfectly valid thing for a law professor to do. My animus toward prosecutors seeking office is perhaps a sort of personal idiosyncrasy, but I figure that someone who is comfortable sending drug users to prison is someone without an ethical core. It is entirely possible to work as an attorney without doing that, but recently it seems like that's the primary route that people take to elective office. I'd like to break the dynamic that encourages ambitious politicians to send poor folks to prison in exchange for "tough on crime" electoral bona fides.
hga 10y ago
but probably won't stand as the Governor is technically the head of prosecution and would therefore have a conflict of interest with every case. I only skimmed the discussion a bit and searched for keywords, but I'm not sure how that can be true when we have an independently elected Attorney General. Unlike the unitary executive system of the Federal executive, where the President can fire the AG at will (see e.g. the other Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre), I don't think the state governor has any power over the AG's office besides I guess the same power to defund him that Nixon did to create this situation in the first place. Or I'm forgetting details perhaps never taught in 7th grade state level civics, back in the early-mid '70s.
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  You might be forgetting that the Governor has the authority to commute and pardon. As a defense council, that would give an unfair advantage. Not only that, the Judge would most likely overrule this as prejudicial to a jury. If that's not enough I wonder if there's a law forbidding an elected official from holding another appointed position. One more thing: Article IV section 2 of the Missouri Constitution says that the "governor shall take care that the laws are distributed and faithfully executed, and shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the state." Which would seem to conflict with the practice of defense council.
  - lukeschlather 10y ago
    People have a legal right to counsel. Also, people are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and jury. Your suggestion that serving as defense counsel would conflict with faithful execution of the laws or conserving the peace is sad. I'd say exactly the opposite is true. If there's a conflict of interest it's because the governor doesn't really want to faithfully execute the law, the governor wants to maximize convictions without regard for the law.
    - Overtonwindow 10y ago
      Hypothetically speaking, could the Governor acting as defense council not issue a pardon on the spot? I think you're being extremely naive to think the Governor can walk into court and act as defense council without a single worry.

by aftbit 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago

Well, remember depending on the ethics rules of the state, the conflict may be waivable by the client :)

maxerickson 10y ago

It's interesting that so many people over there think this will be terrible for his career. His background is also interesting: http://www.mobar.org/esq/mar27/michael-barrett.htm http://www.mobar.org/esq/mar27/michael-barrett.htm His wife is the Executive Director of the Missouri Bar and he used to be a deputy lawyer in the governor's office. This could easily be a first step towards running for an elected position.

throwaway729 10y ago
It's entirely political. Else he'd have also sent letters to members of the bar in MO's general Assembly which is equally if not more to blame for the current situation. (And is, IME, a ridiculous embarrassment to the state...)
- jessaustin 10y ago
  I'm sure he's got more cases to assign. If, after the inevitable delaying tactics, he can actually force the governor to do this, he'll have many more letters to send, and precedent will have been set. (At least, until the new legislative session starts in January.)
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds, specifically to hire more ad litems in child abuse cases (the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the child directly). For some reason the governor's office has withheld $3.5 million of those funds (apparently that's a power the MO governor has?).
  - hga 10y ago
    It is, and I think it's rather common for states, and he's usually used it responsibly to keep the state's finances semi-sane. Don't know about this example, though. The US president used to be able to do this, Thomas Jefferson was the first in 1801 per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...), and it continued to help keep the US Federal budget a bit sane until in 1974 when the Nixon excuse was used, as it was for so much else, to completely change the way we did budgeting (and much else, like campaign financing, the primary system, etc.). As someone who's been there for the before and after, this was not an improvement, something that's going to be brought forcefully to everyone's attention when e.g. we are no longer viewed as the least worst place to stash your wealth.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds ...and also cut $60M in tax revenue without matching spending cuts, taking the political win of lower taxes while forcing the governor to choose between screwing the state Kansas-style or else taking the political fall-out for spending cuts. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's all theater, and you're being duped if you think the legislature isn't at least equally responsible for MO's under-funding of p much everything. > apparently that's a power the MO governor has? Yes, it's actually for more common than not in state governments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States#Governors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
- superuser2 10y ago
  The letter states that the legislature approved funding; the governor vetoed it.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    The legislature approved funding but also passed $60M in tax breaks without matching spending cuts. Nixon then cut this (and 130 other) budget line items in an attempt to balance the now-much-smaller budget [1]. The legislature is just as complicit in the current situation as Nixon. You don't get to slash taxes and then complain that it's someone else's fault that there's no money for critical programs. [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-new-money-for-public-defenders-in-missouri-as-governor/article_3962607e-b4cf-586b-b491-f18d7c6f96a7.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-ne...
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Would you happen to have a roll call for those who voted for the tax cuts?
jessaustin 10y ago
I think he's got my vote. I'm always glad to vote for someone who's not a prosecutor. Seeing Hawley win the AG nomination yesterday was almost enough to make up for the "I'm not a politician but I like to blow shit up" mini-Trump winning the governor nomination. After two terms of a Democrat governor, Missourians will feel like a change, so I expect that goofball to win easily. I was not aware of the ridiculous budget cuts to the PD office. I'll be contacting my legislators...
- exabrial 10y ago
  I haven't followed the Hawley story, not a resident. Are there objective criticisms of him? Frankly I'm happy to see more independent leaning candidates take office and weaken to the two moronic parties.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    The Hawley-Schaefer contest was notable for its inventively awful attack ads. My biggest criticism of Hawley would be the millions of dollars he accepted from unknown parties to run those ads, so it isn't clear how independent he is. Schaefer criticized Hawley for writing amicus curiae briefs for "accused terrorists", but I think that's a perfectly valid thing for a law professor to do. My animus toward prosecutors seeking office is perhaps a sort of personal idiosyncrasy, but I figure that someone who is comfortable sending drug users to prison is someone without an ethical core. It is entirely possible to work as an attorney without doing that, but recently it seems like that's the primary route that people take to elective office. I'd like to break the dynamic that encourages ambitious politicians to send poor folks to prison in exchange for "tough on crime" electoral bona fides.

hga 10y ago

but probably won't stand as the Governor is technically the head of prosecution and would therefore have a conflict of interest with every case. I only skimmed the discussion a bit and searched for keywords, but I'm not sure how that can be true when we have an independently elected Attorney General. Unlike the unitary executive system of the Federal executive, where the President can fire the AG at will (see e.g. the other Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre), I don't think the state governor has any power over the AG's office besides I guess the same power to defund him that Nixon did to create this situation in the first place. Or I'm forgetting details perhaps never taught in 7th grade state level civics, back in the early-mid '70s.

Overtonwindow 10y ago
You might be forgetting that the Governor has the authority to commute and pardon. As a defense council, that would give an unfair advantage. Not only that, the Judge would most likely overrule this as prejudicial to a jury. If that's not enough I wonder if there's a law forbidding an elected official from holding another appointed position. One more thing: Article IV section 2 of the Missouri Constitution says that the "governor shall take care that the laws are distributed and faithfully executed, and shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the state." Which would seem to conflict with the practice of defense council.
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  People have a legal right to counsel. Also, people are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and jury. Your suggestion that serving as defense counsel would conflict with faithful execution of the laws or conserving the peace is sad. I'd say exactly the opposite is true. If there's a conflict of interest it's because the governor doesn't really want to faithfully execute the law, the governor wants to maximize convictions without regard for the law.
  - Overtonwindow 10y ago
    Hypothetically speaking, could the Governor acting as defense council not issue a pardon on the spot? I think you're being extremely naive to think the Governor can walk into court and act as defense council without a single worry.