The Supremes have put our district court judges on notice that, beginning December 1st, criminal defendants who were previously represented free of charge (to them, anyway) will now be assessed a "fee." From the LVRJ:In a nutshell, indigent defendants who are represented by the public defender or a private appointed attorney will be charged on a sliding scale -- a minimum $250 if their case is resolved at the justice court level and up to a maximum $750 if the case nears trial or goes to trial. The more work put into a case, the higher the fee.
Whether to impose the fee is at the discretion of the judges. Judge Herndon summed up the fees this way: "This is their co-pay, now we're an HMO."
Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn said that the PD's office is not the one imposing the fee, nor will they be handling the collection of the fees. This raises an interesting question: Who will be handling collections? Somehow we doubt it will be the DA.
The current plan seems full of problems, but the district courts are apparently going forward with it on December 1st, problems or not.
(LVRJ)
Yeah right. Criminal defendants will pay their PD assessments at the same time they pay restitution; never. This is a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteThey could make it a condition for successfully completing the criminal's case. That way, they stay on paper until they've paid their attorney's fees.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHA, good luck collecting $750 from the guy who is out robbing people because he has no money. I swear we have F'N idiots in charge.
ReplyDeleteLooks like they're trying to bring back the original meaning of the 6th Amendment
ReplyDeleteSince this is my "Friday," did anyone else see this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=11561274
Senator Hosford was caught parked in a handicap spot.
Can a pimp pay in blowjobs from his bottom bitch?
ReplyDeleteIf 10:04 AM's suggestion comes to pass, I do believe there might be some comepetition between DA's and PD's to collect on behalf of the County.
ReplyDeleteThis is good, because the playing field has been tilted so far in the favor of the indigent and against the state. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know, do the Clark PDs still have ~ 400 cases a year?
Geez, I can't believe that former trial judges with criminal dockets would pass this rule. At least the smarter trial criminal judges understand that when you impose fines on criminals, they steal to pay the fines.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, how long until the federal government slaps Nevada for the under-representation of indigents? Glad to see that Clark County still refuses to hire enough PDs to adequate meet the requirements of the US Constitution. I thought that the NV Supreme Court admonished the state last year about this.
WOW, two of the most intelligent things I've ever heard on WWL, all in the same thread:
ReplyDelete@10:27 AM
"I do believe there might be some comepetition (sp?) between DA's and PD's to collect on behalf of the County."
@11:08 AM
"when you impose fines on criminals, they steal to pay the fines"
AH, common sense is a breath of fresh air...
Leaving aside the various constitutional, etc, issues, I will say that the wise words of my mentor have been proven true a gazillion times: People appreciate what they pay for more than what they get for free.
ReplyDeleteTo all the nay sayers, this could work! It won't when the defendant is sentenced to jail and/or prison time. But as part of a "condition of probation" the defendant must pay his court appointed attorney's fees, the county probation office should collect it from him/her when they see the probation officer once a month. It has promise. Give it a chance.
ReplyDelete11:08 AM, the NV Supreme Court kind of did, and the PD underwent the Spangenberg study ordered by the SC and the PD had to keep track of they spent on their cases. Apparently the resulting report said the Clark County PD needs NINETY new public defenders to handle their caseload - it's insanely high, over 200 felony cases per year when the standard is supposed to be around 100, I believe. That doesn't even count misdemeanor cases!!
ReplyDeleteSo NOW the city is trying to figure out what to do because it's fairly obvious that the PD can't uphold their duty of competence as attorneys when they are SWAMPED. So in the middle of this mess of questioning whether they meet constitutional standards representing indigents, they decide to impose "CO-PAYS"???? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
How is this Constitutional??? The Clark County criminal "justice" system is a JOKE.
Oh and while I'm venting about this awful system, let's all give good ol' Davey Roger a pat on the back for his relentless and overzealous prosecution that clogs up our criminal docket with those ever-important arrests of jaywalkers and homeless people who steal toothpaste.
My heart goes out to Phil Kohn. He is one INCREDIBLY passionate man who cares about his position, duties, and the people he represents. He has so little to work with, so many people to represent, and so few attorneys to work with. He tries to squeeze wine from the rocks that the city gives him. An admirable man who Roger could seriously learn some things from.
I guess they will have to change the wording to the Miranda warning.
ReplyDeleteThe following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the
Miranda v Arizona case.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.