In the United States, Public Defenders are being overworked. Their caseloads are extremely large, which is evident from the fact that they are responsible for representing roughly 80% of state felony defendants each year. In some states, a single Public Defender will handle 1,000 cases in a single year. This is an issue that has tremendous implications on our criminal justice system. Public Defenders are available for low income defendants who cannot afford a private attorney. Naturally, in a system that overworks Public Defenders and puts a strain on their abilities to best represent their clients, there is going to be lower quality services from Public Defender offices. This results in a criminalization of poverty, as defendants that have lower incomes are more likely to receive inadequate representation.

​

In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case called Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor man who was convicted of a felony and sentenced to five years in prison following a trial where he had no legal representation because he couldn’t afford it. The Supreme Court decided that states were required to provide criminal defendants with court appointed attorneys if defendants couldn’t afford representation on their own. The court explained that people have this right under the 14th Amendment, which gives people the right to Due Process.

 

Since Gideon v. Wainwright, states have developed Public Defender systems, which appoint government funded attorneys to low income defendants. Who qualifies as a “low income defendant” varies in different jurisdictions since the Supreme Court has not provided clarity or guidance on the issue. Some states give broad access to the Public Defender system, while others make it very difficult to qualify for representation due to strict qualification guidelines. However, regardless of access, there is a widespread problem with the quality of representation that is provided under Public Defender systems. 

 

In the State of Louisiana, a poor man named Landon Quinn was convicted in 2011 for robbery and the murders of two men. He was sentenced to life in prison. What is notable about this case is a lack of evidence that would warrant a guilty verdict. There was no forensic evidence linking Mr. Quinn to the scene, no weapon found, no fingerprints, and no gunshot residue on Mr. Quinn’s hands. On top of all of this, Mr. Quinn had a verified alibi. The only evidence against him was something that has been historically unreliable: cross-racial eyewitness identification. An eyewitness insisted that they saw Mr. Quinn following the crime, despite the fact that the murderer had their face covered in a t-shirt and the crime occured at night. While a person may wonder how this case could have resulted in a guilty verdict and a life sentence, the answer lies in the quality of Mr. Quinn’s attorney representation. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has stated that Public Defenders shouldn’t take on more than 150 cases in a year. However, Mr. Quinn had two Public Defenders, one of which was handling 711 other felony cases that year and the other was handling 543 cases. One of his Public Defenders has stated that they were overworked during the time they worked on his case. This resulted in very low quality advocacy. During Mr. Quinn’s trial, his attorney’s had evidence to impeach the eyewitness and evidence to support his alibi. None of this evidence was introduced because it all sat in case files that the Public Defenders didn’t look at. 

 

In another case, a man named Joseph Wilbur was also appointed a Public Defender. Mr. Wilbur faced multiple criminal charges between the years of 2006 and 2009. During that time, his Public Defender never spoke to him unless they were at a court hearing together. His attorney also failed to respond to his phone calls and letters. This lack of communication resulted in poor advocacy that led to Mr. Wilbur having to plead guilty. There are countless other stories of how our Public Defender system has failed to properly advocate for low income defendants, but the cases of Mr. Quinn and Mr. Wilbur make it clear that change is necessary because inadequate advocacy is taking place and that is leading to improper convictions. 

 

While we have huge problems with our Public Defender system, there are viable options for fixing those problems. In his article, A Fair Fight, Bryan Furst describes solutions to the problems that currently exist in our Public Defender system. Out of his proposed solutions, there are three that I think would be most effective and that should be implemented. 

 

First, he argues that there should be an increase in federal funding for Public Defender programs. He points to the Equal Defense Act, which would provide grants to Public Defender offices that can certify that they are following the best practices in the industry. This would mean that offices that are taking steps to ensure quality representation for defendants would be able to hire more attorneys, resulting in lower case loads and even better advocacy since Public Defenders could spend more time with their clients. 

 

Second, Mr. Furst states that Public Defenders should receive salaries that are more comparable with what a Prosecutor would get paid. Currently, Public Defenders on average make somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 less than Prosecutors annually. This makes it more difficult for Public Defender offices to retain and train quality attorneys, which is especially important if the office is working on a high volume of cases. We need to ensure that these offices are able to hire and retain attorneys that are able to advocate as effectively as Prosecutors, their adversarial counterparts.

 

Third, he asserts that we should shrink the criminal justice system. He suggests that we do this by reducing the number of offenses that can lead to prison time. For example, our criminal justice system could stop incarcerating people who commit nonviolent crimes and crimes that call for 1 year or less of prison time. Another way to shrink the number of cases in the system would be by reforming probation and parole programs. 45% of state prison admissions are due to violations of probation or parole. If we can improve these programs and lower the incarceration rate for people who violate the programs, then we can dramatically lower the amount of cases Public Defenders have to deal with. 

 

It is clear that our Public Defender system is problematic. It ineffectively provides advocacy, which essentially criminalizes poverty by giving low income defendants inadequate representation. However, simple reforms of our criminal justice system can alleviate the burden our Public Defenders are currently carrying, and result in more effective advocacy for low income defendants. Our federal government should increase funding for Public Defender offices, Public Defenders should be more fairly compensated for their work, and we should reduce the caseloads Public Defenders have with meaningful criminal justice reform.