Reflections on Legal Representation of the Economically Disadvantaged: Beyond Assembly Line Justice

Abstract

In Houston, Texas, court-appointed attorneys represent indigent criminal defendants. Are defendants with court-appointed attorneys more likely to receive a punitive disposition (conviction versus nonconviction; a prison sentence rather than probation or a fine) than defendants represented by private, retained counsel? Five hundred and eighty-six defendants were selected at the time of charge and followed for one year or until their cases were disposed. When charge and previous convictions were controlled, court-appointed attorneys and private counsel appeared to be equally successful in obtaining nonconvictions for their clients. Although private attorneys obtained nonprison dispositions more often than court-appointed attorneys did, the differences disappeared when pretrial status was controlled. The data suggest several trends in the Houston courts. Some low-income defendants appeared to be boycotting court-appointed counsel. Pretrial detention was the most significant factor in case disposition. Some defendants detained in jail before trial were there apparently because of ineffective counsel. While the type of attorney did not seem to be signifi cant, advocacy-oriented counsel working to ensure bonding of appropriate defendants is recommended as a means of improving justice in Houston.

Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes

“…Their analysis of conviction rates revealed no advantage for either type of attorney. Wheeler and Wheeler (1980) and Taylor, Stanley, DeFlorio, and Seekamp (1973) similarly found no effect for attorney type in their study of defendants in Houston and San Diego. Nardulli (1986) found that attorney type had no effect regarding securing plea bargains.…”

“…For example, Skolnick (1967) suggested that defendants represented by public defenders will get better plea bargains because prosecutors are more willing to share information with public defenders than with privately retained attorneys. Other researchers agree with this assessment citing studies that reveal criminal defendants represented by public defenders do not fare worse than those represented by private attorneys (Casper, 1972;Levin, 1977;McIntyre, 1987;Oaks & Lehman, 1970;Silverstein, 1965;Wheeler & Wheeler, 1980). These researchers suggest that critics "have tended to underestimate the quality of defense provided by the public defender" (Skolnick, 1967, p. 67).…”

Just Another Crime? Examining Disparity in Homicide Sentencing

“…Research regarding the effects of type of legal representation (e.g., private attorney versus public defender) has been mixed, with some studies finding little or no significant effect of type of representation on sentence severity (Wheeler and Wheeler 1980; Clarke and Kurtz 1983; Willison 1984), and others reporting better outcomes for defendants with privately retained attorneys (Holmes et al. 1996).…”

Public versus private defense: Can money buy justice?

“…A large group of studies found that criminal defendants represented by public attorneys did not fare worse than did those represented by private attorneys (Casper, 1978;Levin, 1977;McIntyre, 1987;Oaks & Lehman, 1970;Silverstein, 1965;Wheeler & Wheeler, 1980). Skolnick (1967) argued that critics tended to underestimate the quality of defense provided by public defenders.…”