Indigent Defense Article Review: The Role of State Constitutional Provisions in Protecting the Rights of Indigent Defendants

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright was a landmark case that asserted the importance of criminal defense to facilitating justice.  This key decision upheld the rights of individuals to obtain proper counsel when facing criminal charges.  Yet, after this victory, courts still face challenges in providing adequate legal representation for indigent criminals struggling with lesser socioeconomic status.  Inadequate funding for indigent defense at the state level compromised the ability of criminal defendants to receive timely counsel in a criminal case and creates additional burdens for public defense attorneys.  However, recent analysis has provided recommendations for overcoming the challenges of providing for competent indigent defense.  Hanlan (2010) highlights how state constitutional provisions can give activists the impetus to expand legal protections for defendants beyond the rights established by the federal constitution.  This research will evaluate Hanlan’s recommendations for indigent defense funds and discuss contributing literature that examines the challenges and opportunities faced in expanding access to legal counsel and protecting the rights of indigent defenders.

Introduction

Despite the confirmation of the right to an attorney in the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, poor criminal defendants still lack adequate legal representation across the United States.  Deficient funding for indigent defense systems undermines the Constitutional rights of criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation.  However, the efficacy of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to address grievances concerning representation is diminishing.  In the Missouri Law Review, Hanlon (2010) asserts that advocates in support of the rights of indigent criminal defendants should focus their efforts on utilizing state constitutional provisions to expand legal representation for the poor.  This report will evaluate the claims supported by Hanlon’s article and assess the contribution that the article makes to the research on indigent defense.

Thesis

Hanlon (2010) concurs with Justice Brennan’s 1977 Harvard Law Review article that states that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent trends of supporting federalism will limit the success of challenging civil rights violations of indigent defenders at the federal level (p. 751).  Further, Hanlon asserts that advocates must adopt a strategy that deemphasizes appeals to the United States Constitution (2010, p. 752).  The article’s thesis is that appealing to state constitutional provisions rather than federal provisions can provide indigent defendants with protections that are greater than those afforded under the U.S. Constitution (2010, p. 752).

Methods

In order to demonstrate the efficacy of appealing to state constitutions, Hanlon evaluates successful indigent defense reform efforts in Florida, Massachusetts, and Missouri.  The author used a case study method in order to demonstrate specific elements of reform that were adopted in each evaluated state.  For example, in the Florida case study, the author evaluates the Rose principle, adopted following Rose v. Palm Beach County, which held that the state has every inherent power to commit to the funding that is needed to ensure that justice is properly administered (2010, p. 756).  Overall, the case study method was appropriate because it allowed the author to examine specific problems faced by each state and pinpoint specific legislative measures that solved the problems.  The cases presented were thoroughly presented, and no errors were present in the author’s methodology.

Evidence of Thesis and Support

The author evaluated court decisions and legislative measures that were adopted at the state level to protect the rights of indigent criminal defenders.  The strength of this evidence is that it demonstrated how specific constitutional provisions in each state could be used to require states to alleviate burdens to the indigent defense system.  However, the main weakness of this evidence is that it failed to show how these reforms were necessarily greater than reforms that would have been allocated under federal protections.  Despite this main drawback, the author sufficiently demonstrated how appeals to state constitutions could be used to win challenges that might otherwise be denied under federal appeals.

Contribution to the Literature

Several articles address the challenges present at the state level to enacting meaningful indigent defense reforms.  Logan (2010) asserts that the separation of power in states provides a barrier to expanding funding for indigent defense.  Through a case study of excessive caseload litigation in Miami-Dade, Logan demonstrates how the Florida state legislature has hindered court efforts to decrease caseloads for overworked public defense attorneys.  Though Florida lawyers filed a motion to withdraw from capital and non-capital cases, the Florida legislature undermined the ability of Florida public defenders to reduce their caseload by refusing to allocate funding towards indigent defense (2010, p. 889).  As Logan (2010) highlights, litigant Jay Kolsky, an assistant public defender, claimed to have defended at least 525 felonies by the end of 2009 (p. 895).  Further, the case study revealed that the legislature only recently took efforts to reduce the burdens placed upon the courts when a 2004 revision of the state constitution shifted the responsibility for indigent funding from the counties to the state (2010, p. 890).  As this case study suggests, the separation of powers makes it unlikely for branches of government to work together to remove barriers to indigent defense unless the cooperating branches are constitutionally compelled to do so.

Masters (2012) further evaluates the barriers to indigent defense reform in the state of Missouri.  Through case study, he examines the process of establishing protections for indigent defenders in Missouri to demonstrate that judges must play a central role in compelling state legislatures to increase funding for indigent defense (2012, p. 99).  However, because the Missouri state constitution calls for “effective assistance of counsel,” advocates have been successful in arguing that the state constitution requires that adequate funding arrangements be made for public defenders to assist defendants (2012, p. 111).  Under these requirements, the state established the Missouri Public Defender Commission, which established rules limiting caseloads for public defenders and enhancing the rights of defendants to receive timely legal counsel (2012, p. 103).  The case of Missouri demonstrates how specific constitutional provisions at the state level can be used to enact significant reforms.

However, despite state-level successes in protecting the rights of indigent defendants, Fairfax (2013) makes the argument that broader reforms in the criminal justice system are necessary to effectively relieve the burdens placed on the indigent defense system.  As Fairfax (2013) cautions, Missouri v. Frye and Lefler v. Cooper assert that defendants are only entitled to assistance in entering a plea bargain (2013, p. 2323).  This trend may compromise public defenders who need to take more cases to trial or enable states to undermine the recent accommodations that have been made to reduce the caseload of public defenders.  Fairfax advocates for a smart crime philosophy where attempts to reduce recidivism and preemptively prevent criminal offenses and subsequent criminal punishments is adopted in order to reduce the number of indigent defendants (2326).  These proposals contribute to the literature by promoting a holistic approach to remedying inequities in indigent defense.  

In comparison to the discussed literature, Hanlon contributes to the research on indigent defense by providing a broader analysis of reform measures.  While several articles analyze a single case study pertaining to one locality, Hanlon addresses three different cases of state-level reform.  Further, Hanlon addresses different aspects of indigent defense funding in each case.  For example, his analysis of Massachusetts’s issues in attorney compensation while the analysis of Missouri discusses issues concerning public defender caseloads (2010, p. 759; 762).  Through this broader scope, Hanlon provides a fuller picture of the challenges posed by the inadequate funding for indigent defense.

Recommendation

The reviewed article contributes to existing literature that outlines challenges posed to advocates who seek to reform inequities in the indigent defense system.  Hanlon’s article draws from several case studies to demonstrate how appealing to the provision of state constitutions can be an effective strategy for reformers.  Activists or attorneys representing indigent clients can benefit from the case studies examines in the article.  Hanlon sufficiently supports the thesis that the decreased efficacy of appeals at the federal level for indigent defense protections will increase the need to adopt strategies that appeal to state constitutional provisions instead.

References

Fairfax, J. Searching for solutions to the indigent defense crisis in the broader criminal justice reform agenda. Yale Law Journal, 122(8), 2316-2335. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Hanlon, S. F. (2010). State constitutional challenges to indigent defense systems. Missouri Law Review, 75(3), 751-769

Logan, W. A. (2010). Litigating the ghost of Gideon in Florida: Separation of powers as a tool to achieve indigent defense reform. Missouri Law Review, 75(3), 885-906.

Masters, P. (2012). Caught between a rock and a hard place: A Missouri court’s tough choice and the power to change the face of indigent defense. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 37(1), 97-138.