Michigan Court-Appointed Self defense For the Indigent - A Flawed System
Everyone's Constitutional Right - The "presumption of innocence" is a legal right of an accused in a criminal trial in the United States of America. It is borne out of the Sixth Modification of the U. S. Constitution that states, in part, "in all prosecutions, the implicated shall delight in the right to have Help of Counsel for his protection." That is, from the minute that the implicated is taken into authorities custody. The principle of "presumption of innocence" is among the bedrocks of the UNITED STATE criminal justice system. Ei Incumbit probacio qui dicit, non qui negat is a Latin legal principle from which the concept was acquired. Translated, it implies: the burden of proof leans on who asserts (the prosecution), not on who rejects (the protection). Therefore, it is the task of a criminal defense lawyer to uphold these tenets and perfects for his customers to the best of his abilities. It is regrettable, nevertheless, that a successfully executed protection is frequently not had by financially disadvantaged accuseds. This is particularly real in the State of Michigan.
The Problems with Bad guy Protection for the Indigent
The reason for this is two fold: 1) there are no state-wide requirements regulating criminal defense services and 2) the burden for paying for the services falls on the shoulders of the specific counties. This is a gross oppression for both the defendant and the Michigan taxpayer.
Michigan, however, is not the only state in the union to experience problems. An en banc panel of the UNITED STATE Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rendered a viewpoint in 2002 which tried to determine how much rest a protection lawyer was allowed to have throughout a capital case trial before his performance as a lawyer was deemed inefficient!
Legal Efforts in Michigan
A suit was filed in 2007 professing that the rights of indigent accuseds had actually been violated due to the ineffective counsel that had actually been rendered by their court-appointed lawyers. The case, Duncan v. Michigan, suggested that representation given to poor customers in Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon Counties was constitutionally inadequate. 3 months back, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously permitted the suit to continue, however, it was dismissed on July 16th due to a choice reversal of 4 justices. This was a very disappointing outcome for those in favor of managing the criminal self defense court-appointment system in Michigan.
And so, it is the task of a criminal protection attorney to uphold these tenets and ideals for his clients to the finest of his abilities. It is unfortunate, nevertheless, that a successfully executed protection is often not had by financially disadvantaged offenders. The reason for this is two fold: 1) there are no state-wide standards regulating criminal defense services and 2) the concern for paying for the services falls on the shoulders of the specific counties. An en banc panel of the UNITED STATE Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rendered an opinion in 2002 which attempted to identify how much sleep a self defense lawyer was allowed to have throughout a capital case trial before his performance as an attorney was deemed inefficient!
About the Author
The Problems with Lawbreaker Defense for the Indigent This info is gathered from defense attorney
Tell others about
this page:
Comments? Questions? Email Here