Mo. public defenders easing caseload limits

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri public defender system says it is easing off its caseload limits that have led to disagreements over whether they have the time and resources to represent some criminal defendants.

Public defender director Cat Kelly said Tuesday she has instructed local public defender offices to treat the caseload limits with more flexibility. The move has the approval of the Public Defender Commission.

Public defenders represent people charged with a crime who face potential jail time but who lack the money to hire an attorney.

Kelly said public defender offices in 20 judicial circuits around the state had been under a limited ability to accept new clients because of the caseload limits.

More like this story

connor 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Now here is a government expenditure I will support 100%. The lengths some of these courts go to when they declare someone financially able to pay a lawyer are a bit exaggerated. Last time I was in a criminal court several years ago I watched as they duck walked some guy out in his orange jumper and shackles who had been jailed for public intoxication. When asked if he had had a job in the last year as he stood there obviously shaking from alcohol detox the judge (A Democrat before someone accuses him of being a Republican not that party matters here) declares that since the guy had worked within a year he was denied a public defender. Then they locked the poor guy back up and were charging him for his stay because he didn't have a home to go to?

We need to fund the public defender offices as much as they require and stop looking for creative ways to deny people their rights to legal representation. I understand making sure someone isn't gaming the system when they can afford to pay is important but not at the expense of denying other's rights.

Paroquet 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I concur 100%, Connor. Notwithstanding that them not having adequate defense opens up a whole phone book of appeal options.

If the charge for the individual you mention was as pale as public intoxication, he should have been released on his own recognizance.

It has been argued by a Federa judge that because a person is acquitted does not mean they are innocent. The reverse then, a person found guilty might not actually have committed the crime, also holds.

Public defenders put a lien on you. Defense is not free or without charge. The court bills you, so you're in essence paying for your own prosecution if found guilty. And if you're acquitted, you pay your own legal fees. Methinks that if prosecution were bound to compensate for defense in the event of an acquittal, they'd be more thorough and less motivated by zeal, spunk, and a feeling of invincibility.

JCLifer 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Agree with you two here.

connor 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful on this rare occasion I have to disagree with you. Mostly because unlike Welfare legal representation is a Right. Of course it needs to be policed to limit abuse but it does differ from other government handouts in that one regard.

wow 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree, for those that cannot afford it, legal repsentation should be provided at no expense to the accused..."BUT" in order to not waste funds some rules must be adhered to. Legal representation means the use of all the applicable FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES assosciated with he crime to prove ones innocense or guilt. If there is a procedural error on the Prosecutions part, the accused does not just go free. Instead the Prosecuting Attorney is held in contempt of court, fined,and if deemed appropropriate performs some type of community servcie pro-bono or serves jail time. If the JUdge learns that the PA is trying withold evidence and Okie Doakin the accused...then that PA goes directly to jail!

As for the Defense Attorney he/she too is mandated to use only the fact's and circumstances applicable to the crime. No trickery, no my client is innocent because they were not properly mirandized. If the person is innocent, then that innocence must be supported by fact's, NOT by gamesmenship. If the DA is trying to Oakie DCoak the he must face the same punishment as recommended for the PA. It's a shsme but the DA's would not be so over worked if they stopped using gamemenship to create a loophole's for their clients. I'm all for a fair trial, but fair trial means just that!

No body should be sent to the lock up without the fact's and circumstances being used to dtermine their fate.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune