endrun wrote on March 20, 2008 04:15 PM: MKovac,
Unfortunately, this is not the way it is. Its not like every judge is out to rape the justice system and innocent people personally, its the fact that many of them get caught up in the system itself, are overwhelmed, and lose grip on the reason they are really there... the interests of justice and not special interests.

It seems that it is becoming the citizen's job to judge the system itself and to learn how the system works to fight for our own interests.

Once we decide that we no longer accept anything less than what the tax payers are paying them for, and hold them individually accountable at the polls as well as civilly and criminally for actions that are less than by the book.

We need to develop a close working relationship with federal agencies that enforce the laws in regard to State officials, police misconduct and public corruption; but ultimately we must get off our naive asses and take control of our state and our country out of the hands of corruption and special interests

Court Insider wrote on March 19, 2008 03:51 PM: Hey Alan Maimon, why not get off your butt and write an article on the following:

1. Why did Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle lock the press out of the contract-attorney selection process?

2. Why was Steve Wolfson on the selection committee, when his law firm was awarded a lucrative contract attorney position? Is that a conflict of interest? Even if he abstained?

3. Why did a tenant of Steve Wolfson's get selected for a contract position? Did the fact that his tenant, who pays him rent, in whole or in part from the money he would have gotten from the contract position, indirectly benefit Steve Wolfson?

4. The criteria was that a contract attorney was to have at least FIVE jury trials. So why was Monti Levy selected, when she has NO TRIALS?

5. Why was Bloomfield selected when he has LESS THAN FIVE trials?

MKovac wrote on March 19, 2008 03:46 PM: On the same note, I don't understand why any judge would oppose measures being taken to ensure defendants' right to counsel. You would think that every judge would want those facing the loss of their liberty (or in some cases, the loss of their lives altogether) to receive effective assistance of counsel.

MKovac wrote on March 19, 2008 03:43 PM: Endrun, you are correct that DAs defend the performance of public defenders when those who are convicted challenge their attorneys' effectiveness. Such challenges certainly create more work for the DAs. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the DAs who are participating in this discussion are not advocating for the hiring of more public defenders. I have to believe that they want to maintain the advantage (in terms of resources provided by the government) that they currently have over the defense. Their participation in this discussion is simply self-serving and should not be taken into account.

endrun wrote on March 19, 2008 01:31 PM: The issue itself revolves around the 6th amendment which guarantees a right to counsel..Franny Forsman is implying effective counsel which is discussed in Strickland, without effective assistance of counsel there could also be an affect on due process and equal protection of law which is guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments.

MKovac wrote on March 19, 2008 07:44 AM:
Why do the DAs have any input on this issue?

They work in concert with the public defender to facilitate guilty pleas.

They also defend the public defenders when the public defender is sued.

Essentially they are on the same team and agree with undr cvr 'Past cases need to be investigated by the feds for wholesale constitutional violations that probably have occured over a long period of time.'

undr cvr wrote on March 19, 2008 12:39 PM: The January 4th order mandates that indigents receive the same legal representation as required by the Constitution as interpreted by Strickand v Washington as 'effective' which means they must by law meet the standards outlined in the order to ensure protection of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

"I don't think the performance of counsel is a fiscal issue," Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman, a member of the court's indigent defense commission told the justices.

So...what have they been doing prior to this order...violating federal law?

Why do changes need to be implemented to comply with an order that basically conforms to the 5th and 14th amendments and established caselaw including Brady v Maryland?

How many indigent cases exist where federal constitutional rights were violated because counsel was ineffective leading up to the order that only establishes a standard that not only should have been applied all along, but implies that violation of Constitutional proportion has been knowingly ongoing and without regard.

These deprivations of rights are serious. Past cases need to be investigated by the feds for wholesale constitutional violations that probably have occured over a long period of time.

I know personally that the DOJ and the FBI are looking for indigents to come forward who have been caught up in this senario.

Nuevo Americano wrote on March 19, 2008 08:30 AM: The Supreme Court got it right especially in Muni Court

Disgusted wrote on March 19, 2008 08:25 AM: If Judge Wagner has issue with compliance he is welcome to resign. There should not have been an issue to begin with. The public should not have been put in a situation that warranted having to fight for their rights.

MKovac wrote on March 19, 2008 07:44 AM: Why do the DAs have any input on this issue?

geezelouise wrote on March 19, 2008 06:26 AM: I think it is interesting that the most voices objecting were coming from the DA's office.

Since the DA's by and large represent the "State" as their client, it would seem much easier for them to adhere to the very low standards issued which are no more restricting and in fact adopted directly from the ABA.

I find it unusual that they don't already use these standards.