not being a lawyer, i can't really follow the bouncing ball to see what o'connor's attempting, but if it gets more addicts in drug treatment, i'm sure randy leonard is all for it.

It's O'Connor's job to advocate on a case by case basis for each of his clients.

That, it seems, is what he's doing. He doesn't have the luxury, like Leonard, of thinking "big picture." Of course the problem with the big picture is that it may occasionally have an impact on people's individual rights.

A few weeks ago I had this awful vision that someone spraying graffiti got their collarbone broken by a vigilante described as totally nude except for thick glasses and soap lather. It would only be a matter of time before the police could track me down as the culprit through blogtown. Randy Leonard, welcome to my nightmare.

"But the fact of the matter is this man was on cocaine. [O'Connor] is clearly not interested in the public policy of getting people better," Leonard says. "He is wrapped up in the procedure of defending crack dealers."

WTF??????

Wow- if only we had some sort of system by which we could determine whether someone commited a crime. Perhaps a decision maker of some sort... That arbitrator could weigh the evidence look at the law and then maybe invite oh, say, 12 members of the community to help decide the facts in a case. That way the differences in what happened could be argued. The government folks could have a say, the accused person could have a say if she wanted and we'd get some people in there to tell what happened, and then the arbitrator and the 12 folks could decide. What do you say? Maybe it's better than just having someone come to that conclusion based on no information at all? I suppose such a system wouldn't work though if people with relevant information decided not to show up.

It is a sad day when an elected official (especially one who pretends to know something about the Constituion and who waves around the freaking Federalist Papers in city hall) doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence. Let's get the police reports and see if in fact the defendant was "on cocaine." I am guessing that old Randy jumped the gun and doesn't know any of the facts of the incident at all.

Why does he keep saying stupid things that will piss off the judge who has to determine the fairness of his pet program? At the end of the day all we have to protect us from the government are annoying lawyers concerned about procedures [aka civil liberties] because elections are simply getting us blowhards like Leonard and secret backroom government. Better a due process obsessed defense lawyer than a rogue legislator drafting bills of attainder any day. Randy Leonard thinks his way is the best way and screw anyone who asks for some basic civil liberties protections.

I'm sure if Mr. Leonard's child were to be in possession of illegal drugs or dealing with an addiction he wouldn't be so quick to get the criminal justice system involved and instead would hire someone like Mr. O'Connor to avoid that very result.

It's funny because O'Connor, from what I understand of the motion, wants the guy to get treatment and the city can't explain why that wasn't offered to him. Why criticise him for that?

Leonard should be ashamed of himself.

Barney: yeah, whew, thanks, I was about to post a similar angry comment about that exact quote, but you beat me to it.

Now I am not one to believe in conspiracies or kookie things like inside jobs and such. But when Ted opens up Wapito jail and the 150 bed treatment facility will this not be a remidy to fireboys problem?

If you peal this back a layer it leads to Jeff Myers who has duped Randy into believing in his cause.

The reality is drug addicts are being singled out, and sometimes tortured into treatment. Some get it, some don't.

I should not have said what I did to Matt about Mr. Thomas. I apologize.

However, I have a lot of experience with those with drug and alcohol addictions. Their lives -and the lives of those that love them- are a complete hell.

Anyone that does not want to recover from their addiction cannot be "tortured" into it. Their life is torture enough. Nothing I or the system does or says is worse than their best day when they are using. A person who decides to go into treatment instead of staying in jail is usually sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are looking for hope when all they know is darkness and hopelessness.

The underpinnings of Project 57 includes my belief that drug addicts, drug dealers and alcoholics are good people who want to lead a descent life but are trapped in the grips of an addiction that drives them to do unthinkable things to themselves, their families and to the community at large.

Project 57 gives many of those addicts the break they need from the streets to sober up. Once sober, they can then agree to go into treatment for their addictions. Yes, many choose treatment in order to get out of jail, however, to successfully complete treatment you have to want to quit using. That dynamic is the powerful simplicity that makes project 57 succeed where other strategies have not.

Since we started Project 57 a little over two years ago there has been a 71% drop in the recidivism rate among the top 300 offenders in Portland. In other words, there are over 280 people that were committing a disproportionate amount of crime in Portland who have sobered up and are making positive changes in their lives....not to mention not offending and bogging down the entire criminal justice system.

That some who are arrested are not offered treatment is not an indictment of Project 57 but rather a testament to how little our state understands that fully funding treatment programs not only gives people their lives back but also makes our community a safer place for everyone.

Randy,

You get the Monkey off the Junkie,
And they stop being skunky.
Jeff won't bust the punkie,
Makin' Chris feel all funky.

Chris will be all lonely,
Without scuz to spring on phony,
Technicalities so tony,
No more scuz, no more money.

You should apologize to O'Connor too.

Good thing he is a lowly paid public defender or he might hire an attorney of his own to sue you for defamation or something for suggesting that he isn't interested in "the public policy of getting people better" when clearly he is actually out on the front lines helping people every day. Then you criticize him for being "too wrapped up in the procedure of defending crack dealers." Don't you pay him to help crack dealers?

Ironically he's doing all this while working for the [city? county? State? Who do those guys work for exactly? I'm guessing he doesn't report to Randy Leonard] I'm guessing you pay him less than the city attorney that warned you about libeling Mr. Thomas and is helping you dodge your court summons.

( I have to say though: it has to be worth a couple of thou a year to get to use public money to attack public policies and wayward politicians, so we'll forgive you paying him a few thousand less than your other, more controlled, lawyers)

Randy,

How is the top 300 determined, and is that list rotating?

How can the police identify/determine 300 junkie's, have a 71% success rate and continue with a program without drastically changing what top offender means?

At what point can you say this has worked and why are the police in charge of the pilot project. Why not hire health workers to work with people in a way that doesn't involved law enforcement.

"Nothing I or the system does or says is worse than their best day when they are using. A person who decides to go into treatment instead of staying in jail is usually sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are looking for hope when all they know is darkness and hopelessness." - this may be true in many cases, but it's still your opinion. For some individuals who are dealing with any number of trauma's in their lives, especially individuals who don't have access to healthcare - drugs are one way to self-medicate. You have no proof that someone who is an addict live isn't dark and hopeless because the criminal justice system continues to harass them.

Your entire basis is the very reason we should be talking about decriminalization and taking the power of helping an individuals out of law enforcements hands.

One of the number one things police officers say is they are tired of being social workers. How come when it comes to dealing with homelessness and the mentally ill you find a very real dissatisfaction on the force, but when you are talking about busting junkies without a pot to piss - Officer Myers and other brass at the bureau have to be in control of every method possible?

We need more outreach workers on the streets that aren't tied to the bureaucracy but have the capacity to open doors.

The war on drugs has been going on for a very long time, and this method is purely defense. It has nothing to do with prevention and the real reason people are using drugs.

Man that "poem" by the Torch and Pitchfork Society in the above comments was terrible in so many ways. But it does inspire me to invoke a method of debate not often used in the realm of public policy and criminal justice: The Limerick Challenge!

I'll start:

The city got caught in a jam
with druggies all out on the lam
But Randy can fix it
(if the courts do not nix it)
If you believe that I'll sell you this tram...

Randy? Will the city attorney let you respond in limerick form?

i think its great that city leaders have this arena to 'talk' to us, and i hope this ordeal does not squelch it!

Full disclosure: I'm a public defender in Vancouver, and a friend of Mr. O'Connor's. Having said that, I don't see any basis for Mr. Leonard saying that Mr. O'Connor has no interest in the public policy of getting people better. Criminal defense work, by its nature, involves trying to achieve specific results. And Leonard's statement that Mr. O'Connor is "wrapped up in the procedure of defending crack dealers" leaves out the word "alleged." Mr. Leonard would probably roll his eyes at being corrected, but the presumption of innocence is not something to be taken lightly. I regularly ask jurors for their thoughts about it, and frequently get negative comments on the presumption of innocence. However, in ten years of asking jurors whether, if they were charged with a crime, they would prefer to be presumed innocent or guilty, I've yet to hear a juror say they'd prefer to be presumed guilty. And most people, if charged with a crime, and being given the choice of a lawyer concerned about their rights, like Mr. O'Connor, or a lawyer more concerned with public policy, would choose Mr. O'Connor every time. Including, I would hazard to say, Mr. Leonard.

Neil Anderson

If you are judge or on a jury, then the presumption of innocence applies. That is because the judge or jury alone has the power to convict a person and therefore subject that person to the power of the state to punish criminals.

The presumption of innocence is an extreme measure designed to protect the rights of accused people in the face of the government power and the potential that power holds for abuse. Randy Leonard is not a judge or a juror. He is entitled to his opinion. If a person is arrested for a crime they are likely guilty. Every person is entitled to their opinion, and concluding an criminally accused person is guilty is a perfectly reasonable opinion. There is no shame in that. If you think otherwise you misunderstand the presumption of innocence.

Chris O'Conner is advocating for his client. Subpoenaing Randy Leonard sounds like a creative (and perhaps misguided) attempt to advocate for the rights of the accused. Good for Chris O'Conner. But that does not mean Randy Leonard is somehow in the wrong for saying what he said. Randy Leonard serves not just the criminally accused, but all Portlanders. He is doing his job, and should not be criticisized for it.

Damn. This is interesting...

Barney,

I am also a criminal defense attorney and my office happens to be next door to Mr. O'Connor's.

I can answer your questions about who we work for and who pays our bills.

The simple answer is that we work for our clients. Period. We advocate for them in court, we take their cases to trial, we look out for injustices and we try to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake. But then, you knew that and you were looking for a more practical answer. Alrighty then.

The State of Oregon funds criminal defense for people who can't afford it through the judiciary's budget. Those funds are administered by the Public Defense Services Commission. The PDSC, in turn, contracts with private firms and consortiums of individual attorneys to provide representation to poor people. That the state wants to pay as little as possible should be self-evident.

Mr. O'Connor and I work for a private, non-profit law firm (once rumored to be the largest non-profit law firm west of the Mississippi, but I don't know if that is only a legend...). Our firm was set up more than 30 years ago and was the first organized public defender office in the state.

So, the state pays us while Multnomah County funds Mr. Shrunk's office. The state pays us significantly less than the people who work for the county. Significantly less. And, yes, we get paid significantly less than the city's attorney.

Mr. Leonard does, indeed, owe Mr. O'Connor an appology. As a matter of fact, he owes me and others like me an appology as well.

Mr. Leonard, if Mr. O'Connor and I and the rest of us who do this really difficult work for really meager pay didn't care about "the public policy of making people better" we wouldn't be doing this work. Period. I'd be at a transactional firm pulling down 6 figures. I'd be able to pay my student loans and my mortgage in the same month.

We get our clients mental health treatment. We direct them to treatment beds. We help them keep their children. We listen to them and try to get them the services that they need.

No, I am not a social worker. I am a lawyer. My job is not to pass judgment on my clients' lives and choices, my job is to guide them through a difficult system and to offer assistance with the rest of their lives if they want it. My job is to try cases and to challenge the state's actions if that is what my clients want. And you know what? I love my job.

Leave the judgment to politicians like Mr. Leonard.

Mr. Davis, please, when you write about criminal justice, try to get the very basics right.

You write, "according to the suit," yet there is no suit. Mr. O'Connor and his client are defending against a criminal charge.

Randy Leonard has not been "slapped" with anything. He has been summoned to give testimony in someone else's criminal case. Lots of people get subpoenas to be witnesses in criminal cases all the time, including police officers, bystanders, psychologists, and the defendant's grandmother. There is no slapping involved. Leonard is not a party to any suit or action. The worst that will happen to him is that he will have to show up in a courtroom, bring some paperwork, and talk.

The subpoena was not issued "for" any behavior of Mr. Leonard's in the sense of some sort of punishment. He's just a person who knows something relevant to the defense's theory of the case.

I am a criminal defense attorney who works in O'Connor's firm, but I have nothing to do with the case in question.

I am always available to explain the basics of criminal law and procedure to anybody, even reporters on deadline.

If we do happen to call on you, Mike, for "the basics," can we count on you to be such a pompous jerk? CAN'T WAIT!!

Speaking of unequal treatment, an interesting point was raised about the discrepancy in pay between public defenders and prosecutors. I think Mr. O'Conner's gambit is a good illustration of the problem this causes: mediocre public defenders.

Generally, public defenders tend to be long on enthusiasm and zeal but short on legal analytical skills. For example, while Mr. O'Conner seems like an uncommonly zealous advocate for his clients, his equal protection argument is pretty bunk. Either he doesn't understand the law or he is just trying to get attention. Maybe a little from column a) and a little from column b).

Overall, I think the caliber of attorney at the public defenders is poor. This is probably because they don't get paid very much. We would be better off as a society if we were willing to better fund public defenders. That way, the poor would have more equal access to justice. Also, better public defenders would more effectively rein in unprofessional and unethical law enforcement types.

I won't be a pompous jerk, Humphrey. I'll explain things to you in a soothing sing-song voice, using short, simple words. I'll also give you lots of praise when you show some curiousity.

Wow. I have a new found respect for public defenders, formerly thought of as "public pretenders". Thanks for the info; this is the most informative blog I've ever read. Keep fighting the good fight, and no offense meant, but I hope that I'll never need your services.

Dear Some Guy,

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you over the quality of attorneys at my office.

Heck, I'm not even going to get into a pissing match with you over my own legal skills and ability to represent my clients.

I just hope you'll never need us.

At least you should probably take note and spell Mr. O'Connor's name correctly.

Bite me.

I hereby nominate MissConductPDX for the best pseudonym award.

I think our pubic defenders are highly competent, and represent their clients highly effectively.

Yes, there's a pay gap. But you know, I think that does more to encourage only those who are deadly serious about doing the job well, to apply.

ANYBODY can be a tax attorney. Just ask Jack Bogdanski.

It takes a special person to do criminal defense. Incidentally, I see distinct parallels with certain alt-weekly journalists, on this score. But that's beside the point.

Dear Some Guy

The hallmark of a fallacious argument is to refute an argument that your opponent is not making. I never stated that the presumption of innocence is applicable outside of a courtroom. I pointed out that Leonard was trying to discredit O'Connor by saying that since he represents criminals his opinion doesn't have to be taken seriously. Mr. Leonard's free to believe that any and all of Mr. O'Connor's clients are guilty even of crimes they haven't been charged with, but if Mr. Leonard's going to try to discredit Mr. O'Connor by calling his clients crack dealers, it's certainly not unfair for me to point out that Mr. O'Connor's clients are legally presumed innocent, and that it's appropriate for Mr. O'Connor to act accordingly on their behalf as their attorney. "If a person is arrested for a crime they are likely guilty." I'm going to take a wild guess that you've never been arrested.

Neil Anderson

The reason for the vast difference in pay between DA's & PD's is an institutionalized attempt to place advantage with the government in criminal proceedings.

Anyone who is willing to put up with abuse from the system, their clients and the public at large as they work to protect the constitutional rights of all of us deserves nothing but our thanks and respect.

This means you Randy.

Matt,

These are all good points.

I do not want to belabor the argument. I appreciate the work public defenders do.

That being said, I think we could do better. Yes, I know there are a lot of very good public defenders out there. I just think there should be more. And when I look at someone like O'Connor and what he is doing, I have think there are better people out there to do his job.

Thanks, Matt. Sorry to have added a childish tone to your blog with my "bite me."

On another note, I understand that Sheriff Guisto has just announced his retirement effective before the end of the year.

Any comment?

Neil,

I was responding more to Barney Fife than to you with the presumed innocent comments. I do think the presumption of innocence is largely misunderstood.

I think Leonard's point was this: public defenders' actions are more narrowly directed at defending the immediate interests of his client. Essentially, he is right. O'Connor is just trying to defend his crack dealing client. That should not serve to discredit O'Connor in and of itself. But it does insofar as it highlights the fact that O'Connor is not advocating for what is best for society, only what is best for his client right now. (Although I don't doubt he THINKS what he is doing is for the greater good, I tend to disagree).

As far as accused people, I am sure you do not mean to dispute the contention that the majority of persons prosecuted for crimes are guilty.

As an aside, I appreciate the fact that you are choosing to comment under your own name. Of course, I would not say some of the things I said above if I was using my real name. Not because I don't believe them, but because I don't want people to be angry at me for what I am saying.

I know Chris O'Connor, Chris O'Connor is a friend of mine as are several Public Defenders. I can tell you that these people are some of the hardest working selfless people I know. Having graduated with a professional degree, and often a large amount of debt acquired getting it, they decided to forgo employment at a prestigious law firm making the big bucks and instead put their skills to work helping the most disadvantaged members of our society when they are at their lowest. They are the living embodiment of those who believe we can judge a society based upon how it treats it's lowest members (like accused crack dealers) and not how it treats gentlemen like Randy Leonard. And whether you like it or not, whether you even know it or not, they are the front line in defending the hard won liberties of our forefathers. For this they are paid a fraction of what they are worth. While the pay gap may "encourage only those who are deadly serious about doing the job well to apply," it is still a travesty.

some guy,

It is apparent from you posts that you believe you can lump people together in groups and treat them as a vague concept instead of as individual people. Such statements as "I think Mr. O'Conner's gambit is a good illustration of the problem this causes: mediocre public defenders," "Generally, public defenders tend to be long on enthusiasm and zeal but short on legal analytical skills," and "Overall, I think the caliber of attorney at the public defenders is poor." reveal that you are most likely A) completely ignorant of the legal system and the challenges posed to public defenders, B) willing to flaunt your ignorance and make disparaging statements based on them, C) empirical proof that jackasses have learned English and are using the internet, or D) all of the above.
Chris O'Connor is certainly advocating for his client in this situation, as he should. What you obviously don't realize is that Mr. Thomas is probably one of about 50 cases that O'Connor has on his plate right now, and more are coming in all the time. This particular case is not unique in any way shape or form, and if O'Connor is making it so by calling on Randy Leonard to testify then it is to gather information on the hundreds of similar cases that will succeed it. Arguing that O'Connor, or any public defender, is simply advocating for one client in one particular situation, and therefore can largely be discounted as not seeing the big picture is actually refusing to see that big picture for what it is, a tapestry made of pixels each of which is a case like that of Mr. Thomas.

Some guy,

No need to be shy. Call my office--you know which one I work for, obviously. They'll connect you to MissConductPDX. The front desk knows exactly who I am.

We can chat, and you can tell me that I'm no legal scholar and I couldn't lawyer my way out of a paper bag, if you'd like.

In the mean time, I'll sit here at my desk and provide excellent representation to poor people.

When you call MissConductPDX (or her boss Jim Hennings) ask about the hundreds of cases that O'Connor and her office have gotten dismissed through excellent legal research, strong motion practice and their sweet trial skilz. Better yet, ask the DA's Office how many cases have been dismissed outright even before trial due to that office's work? You see, lawyers do share work and ideas and even wholesale motions in this town's defense community and there have been more than a few moderately well crafted legal challenges originating in that office and other public defense firms. Haven't seen anyone charged with a DFZ lately, have you? I think that was O'Connor's pet project and it turned out he was right all along. That's probably what Randy is so upset about.

But really, given the strong power of the state to investigate, charge and prosecute violations of the criminal law it is pretty amazing that anyone ever wins against the state. But lots of Public Defenders in the town do.

All,

I support the work of public defenders. Like I said above, I know there are a lot of good ones.

I appreciate it that you guys stick up for each other. But I have seen way too many bad indigent defense attorneys. Sorry, but its true. And if you guys got paid more, and Judges too for that matter, we would all be a lot better off. I can hardly imagine you really disagree with getting paid more.

I do not think Mr. O'Connor single-handedly overturned the DFZs. People have been arguing the DFZ ordinance was unconstitutional for years. The motions did work. And that was an example of good lawyering.

Miss Conduct,

Why would you I call you? Also, I never said you were a bad lawyer.

Nick,

Uh. There isn't much point in responding to your post, so I won't.

You were going to call me to chat, dear. To chat. You didn't want to hide behind pseudonyms.

"Generally, public defenders tend to be long on enthusiasm and zeal but short on legal analytical skills."

Also..."I think the caliber of attorney at the public defenders is poor."

Sorry if I thought you called me a bad lawyer--seeing as I am a public defender and all. Seeing that I take great pride in providing quality defense that goes beyond the court room. Seeing that I neglect my family to do this job. Yeah. Sorry I misunderstood you. Guess I'm too sensitive.

Some Guy-
Please note that changes in the law dismissed as "bunk" legal arguments by trial judges and other lawyers often resurface as the law of the land after the Supreme Court adopts a new rule of law.

Public defenders police the government's ability to enter and search your home, seize your property and your person, limit and control your liberty. We need smart, creative, zealous and "misguided" lawyers to do this work. In Portland, we are lucky enough to have just such a group of public defenders.

Some Guy-
Please note that changes in the law dismissed as "bunk" legal arguments by trial judges and other lawyers often resurface as the law of the land after the Supreme Court adopts a new rule of law.

Public defenders police the government's ability to enter and search your home, seize your property and your person, limit and control your liberty. We need smart, creative and zealous lawyers to do this work. In Portland, we are lucky enough to have just such a group of public defenders.

Miss Conduct,

Way to be Zealous. I am sure you are very good at your job.

BTW, I said "OVERALL, I think the caliber of attorney at the public defenders is poor".

Get a room you guys. Get a room.

So which Public Defenders in particular are poor, some guy? Despite agreed upon counter examples to this judgment of yours you continue to stick to this opinion that as a group PDs are sloppy lawyers who don't do their research and couldn't analyze their way out of a paper bag. I'm happy that you've consumed enough bad television and misbegotten Saturday afternoon movies to form that opinion, but in reality I don't find any basis for it. That's not to say that all PDs are descended from Perry Mason himself, but I'd have to say on the whole they are pretty damn good lawyers faced with a constant barrage of difficult cases, often featuring genuinely guilty people (which Mason always seemed to avoid). So I'm curious what real world examples you can give, what with your demonstrated expertise in all things legal, to support your opinion that a majority of PDs are of poor caliber?

MissConductpdx, you go, you. If we had more people like you and Mr. O'connor, we would have less people dying in the streets and in far off lands for no good reason. The right people, like Bush-Cheney would be where they deserve to be, JAIL. I salute you and all overworked and underpaid PD's who keep the jackals in check

Interesting debate. In this great democracy we call America, it does seem like you need both sides in order for the system to actually work. You know, someone needs to prosecute the crimes, and someone else needs to defend the accused. Otherwise you would simply have prosecutors and guilty pleas, rather than inviting the judge and the twelve jurors to help determine the outcome to ensure fairness. I would posit that 'some guy' is wrong, and not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, and in fact our system was set up on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man.

Randy Leonard sounds like one more blowhard politician trying to prove he is 'tough on crime' rather than displaying any real interest in learning where the problems in the system are. He certainly does not seem interested in gathering suggestions or input from those people working within the system. What about the Work Release Program Mr. Leonard? That highly effective program was cut due to budget constraints. Talk to some sheriffs at the Multnomah County Detention Center and see if they wish that program were still available. Talk to some probation officers and ask them the same thing. Talk to some counselors at inpatient treatment centers about it, or some judges, or even some attorneys...but don;t just rely on law enforcement to further your own political agenda.

Oh yeah, and "some guy" sounds like a district attorney with an axe to grind. He can't post under his real name because he is afraid people will "get angry with me for what I am saying." What people are you afraid of 'some guy'? The Constitution protects your right to free speech, remember?

Back to Mr. Leonard's original program. It seems he wants to create a special court to direct drug offenders into treatment and help them regain their lives and reduce their chances of re-offending.
If only someone had thought of this before! Wait! Someone has! It's called STOP court. Right here in Multnomah County. In fact, it's the second oldest drug court in the US, and for over a decade it's been doing EXACTLY what Mr. Leonard's program promises, except STOP already delivers. Not only that, it's been the subject of independent analysis, and found to be remarkably effective. How do I know? I'm a public defender who's spent the last 6 months representing hundreds of defendants who are given the chance substitute drug treatment for criminal prosecution.
Why didn't the District Attorney's office tell Mr. Leonard there was no need to recreate the wheel? I don't know. I do know that Mr. Leonard's program will fund an additional Deputy DA with city dollars instead of county money.
Why didn't the DA and the city consult with the defense bar and the court before instituting the program? I don't know, but I do know they didn't talk to me, and the judge in charge of the
STOP court hadn't heard of it until I stopped him on the street just the other day and told him I had learned that there was a whole new class of defendants that have been singled out as ineligible for his court.
Finally, how do defendants find themselves targeted for special treatment? I don't know, because the police bureau has created their own enemies list (they call it the "dirty thirty") and they refuse to tell us what the criteria is for inclusion.
Is the treatment being offered effective? We can't tell because according to the probation office and the district attorney's office, the treatment beds don't exist yet.
How do we find answers to these obvious questions? I guess the only way is for a frustrated public defender to slap a subpeona on a city commissioner, put him under oath in front of a judge, and ask. Good work Chris.

I hope these lawyers are doing a better job at defending their clients than arguing their case here.

Somebody does something to help addicts and drunks and these lawyers scream as though someone is stealing their money.

Hmmmm. Now I understand.

Hmmmmm.....,

I don't think you understand how public defenders get paid. First of all, the majority of folks doing indigent defense in the county are on salary. They work for firms that have contracts with the court to pick up a certain number of cases get paid by the case. It is a complicated formula based on the total appointed cases, but for the sake of discussion lets say $500 for a misdemeanor case. (I don't know how close that is to the mark - often folks covicted are ordered to repay $400 to the indigent defense fund)

A greedy firm, only in it for the money, would have the incentive to plead their client out as quickly as possible. A quick review of the police reports, quick chat with the DA and guilty plea totalling two hours? That's $250 an hour.

But say that attorney assists the person through a whole trial taking a total of 15 hours of preparation, trial and investigating the case. Then that's $33.00 an hour. Obviously the rate obtained by an indigent defense fund drops the more work the attorney puts into it.

Note that the opposite occurs for a privately retained attorney. If one charges you $200 per hour to work on your case you are going to think twice before prepping for a two day trial because you are paying $200 x the hours put in by the attorney. The rate remains the same and one could surmise that a private attorney in it only for the money would want to stretch the case out to trial and drain your money.

All else being equal, a greedy indigent attorney wants to plea you out as quickly as possible while a greedy private defense attorney would want to make the case last as long as possible.

So I would propose that to discuss whether an indigent defense attorney is simply in it for the money we would have to look at how much time they are actually spending on each case. Trial or lots of research or working with the client = loss of money for the firm.

To look at our current example of the case that Randy is trying to weasel his way out of, there is certainly no financial incentive for O'Connor or his firm to pursue the case or even file any motions at all. Doing so neither gains them any money and in fact just takes up more of their time. One would have to assume that there is some basis for the motion and that O'Connor and the firm are working to protect their client's intrests. Otherwise they would just plea the guy out and leave the office at 5:00 and cash their check on the way home.

I'm not a DA, FYI

In addressing the money issue, you can look at my recent one and a half day trial that lasted three days.

In private practice, neither my client nor I could have afforded that at all.

Interesting, no?

BTW, some guy, you know what I do for a living. If you're not a DA and you don't want us to know who you are 'cause you don't want to upset anyone, why don't you just tell us what you do for a living?

Still waiting for your call, dear.

Miss Conduct,

He probably doesn't have a job, he just sits at home watching Law & Order re-runs or Nancy Grace... or he may be a cop who is bent because he cannot be bothered with a person's civil rights and had a few too many cases tossed due quality work by a PD.

I have a feeling that "Some Guy" is actually some guy on Randy's staff. What do u think?

I think he's a cop.

WOW;

that was one of the most interesting blogs I have read!

Anonymous people don't hold much weight however, what are they scared of anyway?

You cant change anything in this world by being anonymous.