On May 23, 2013 the Florida Supreme Court responded to the cries of Public Defenders who admitted that they have more clients than they can effectively handle. In rendering its decisions in Public Defender Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al., vs. State of Florida No. SC10-1349 and No. DC09-1181, the court more than agreed. In fact, in its written opinion the Florida Supreme Court called the situation “a damning indictment of the poor quality of trial representation that is being afforded indigent defendants.” (An indigent person is someone who meets the government’s specified criteria of being unable to afford a private attorney.)
The Florida Supreme Court found that:
- Public Defenders had an on average, more than 400 cases to manage at any given time;
- Because of excessive caseloads, Public Defenders often have as many as 50 cases set for trial in a single week;
- Public Defenders are unable to properly interview new clients, conduct proper investigations or even take depositions to uncover defenses and mitigating evidence on behalf of their clients;
- That Public Defenders rarely visited the alleged crime scene as part of their preparation;
- Public Defenders were often unprepared for trial;
- That a routine practice of Public Defenders was referred to as “meet and great pleas.” In other words, the Public Defender would meet his client for the first time in the courtroom or in an adjacent hallway. That without knowing anything more than what was printed on the criminal arrest affidavit, the Public Defender was expected to counsel his client about a plea bargain offer at the very first court date;
The recent Florida Supreme Court criticism came about after one of Florida’s Public Defender’s offices began withdrawing from representation in a number of felony criminal cases. The Public Defenders contended that they had an insufficient number of attorneys necessary to handle the large volume of clients they were appointed to represent. As such, they argued that they could not ethically provide the appropriate representation that their client’s deserved.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed Florida Statute Section 27.5303(1)(d) which prohibits a judge from granting a motion to to withdrawal by a Public Defender based on underfunding, excessive caseloads or the prospective inability to adequately represent a client. In finding the statute unconstitutional as applied, Justice Peggy Quince, writing for the majority, found that overworked and over-stretched Public Defenders did not have the time or means to properly handle each of their many clients’ criminal cases.
The Supreme Court wrote:
“This Court has repeatedly recognized that excessive caseload in the Public Defender’s Office creates a problem regarding effective representation.”
The Guarantee of “Effective” Legal Representation
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, resulted in the creation of the Office of the Public Defender. Prior to Gideon, persons who lacked the financial means to retain a lawyer, were forced to represent themselves. As you might imagine, the accused was more often than not “out-gunned” by an experienced prosecutor. He likely knew nothing about the rules of evidence and probably understood little of the trial court judge’s rulings.
The appointment of a Pinellas Public Defender to an indigent person is intended to level the playing field. The overwhelming number of Public Defenders working in the Clearwater Criminal Justice Center genuinely care about their clients. The job of a Public Defender is a noble and often rewarding occupation. However, Florida politics and a poor economy have cut the funding necessary to properly staff the Public Defender’s Office with a sufficient number of experienced lawyers. As a result, Public Defenders are unsurprisingly assigned an overwhelming and unreasonable number of cases. The new Florida Supreme Court decision, will in principle, provide a method to enable our local Public Defenders to petition the court to withdraw from an excessive number of cases. However, given economic considerations and job security concerns, these hard working men and women will most likely be encouraged not to “rock the boat.” If that is what happens and current policies remain unaddressed, then Gideon’s spirit has died, since there is an enormous difference between having “a lawyer” versus having “an effective lawyer.”
At Russo & Russo, we are Pinellas Attorneys who represent clients charged with DUI and all other criminal offenses arising out of St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and the greater Pinellas County area. We are former state prosecutors with significant criminal defense experience.
Free Consultation: 727-578-0303
We have the time & resources to zealously advocate your defense.
Consider Some Criminal Defense Solutions: www.defensehelp.com
Find Helpful FAQ - Pinellas County DUI: www.duistpetersburglawyer.com
Related Links:
Should You stay with a Public Defender or Retain Private Counsel?
Is a Private Attorney Better Than a Public Defender?
Attorney Russo Shares His Expertise With Pinellas Public Defenders
Tampa Bay Times: Florida Public Defenders Overloaded With Work
How to Find the Best Clearwater / St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney
How to Decide if a Criminal Defense Attorney is Right for the Job
Comments