For prosecutors, bias shows up in charging decisions, pretrial and trial strategies and closing arguments, says Redfield. For public defenders, bias can alter case evaluation, client interaction and settlement.
Full Answer
Cons of a Public Defender. Lack of Communication - public defenders are hard to get a hold of. Unconcerned - due to caseload, public defenders have less time to devote to on cases, making it hard to do a thorough job. Unconcerned - public defenders are likely to push a plea deal and not willing to put up a strong fight if needed.
Another disadvantage of having a public defender is that the client does not have the choice of lawyer. The court appoints the lawyer. If the public defender is not satisfying the client, he or she may find it difficult to get a new public defender. Private Lawyer A private lawyer is someone whom the defendant or his or her family personally selects. Disadvantages of Hiring a Private âŚ
 ¡ If defendersâ bias causes them to doubt their clientsâ innocence, it could lead to them spending less time on their clientâs cases. Professors Song Richardson and Philip Atiba Goff wrote in a 2013 article for the Yale Law Journal : â[Defenders] may expend more effort on cases in which they believe their client is factually innocent.â
A big difference between a public defender vs private attorney is the fact that if a lawyer does a poor job their business will suffer. A public defender gets more cases than they can handle no matter the outcomes. Only trust your freedom to the best criminal defense attorney in your state. Another benefit of a private lawyer is access to more ...
According to the Marshall Project, defense attorneys are not immune to the racial and ethnic biases that are most often attributed to police and prosecutors, and these biases may subconsciously compel them to disregard their clients' innocence claims and encourage guilty pleas.
Previous research demonstrates that lawyers and law students are, on average, prone to overconfidence bias and self-serving judgments of fairness when they take on a representative lawyering role. This is the first study to investigate individual differences in susceptibility to these biases.
List of the Cons of Public DefendersThey are often overworked and underpaid for the work they do. ... They may carry more than 100 cases at any given time. ... They have fewer time resources to commit to any one case. ... They may be unable to properly advocate for some defendants. ... They might not be able to afford an investigator.More items...â˘
Here are five of the most pressing:Not everyone is eligible. ... Court-appointed counsel may not be as effective. ... Funding constraints. ... Questionable independence of counsel. ... Lack of standards.
Similar biases can infect courtroom proceedings. For example, research has shown that the race, perceived attractiveness, affability, and nervous behavior of a defendant can all influence rates of conviction and lengths of sentencing.
In the school-to-prison pipeline, bias can affect suspension and exclusion, referral to law enforcement, disparities in juvenile justice, differences in diversion and retention, placement in locked facilities, terms of probation and trial as adults, presentence reports, sentencing, prison discipline and even the death ...
Top 10 Being a Lawyer Pros & Cons â Summary ListBeing a Lawyer ProsBeing a Lawyer ConsLawyers can earn really good moneyLawyers often work long hoursBeing a lawyer implies excellent career optionsStress can be enormousLawyers can work in many different jobsBeing a lawyer may affect your family life7 more rows
Advantage of Public Defenders Public defenders often know the quirks and preferences of the prosecutors and judges, and can use this knowledge to better know how to move forward with a case. They also see the same police officers testifying, and know who's likely going to be a good or bad witness for your case.
In fact, a recently study done by the American Bar Association found that public defenders are often just as effective as private counsel. This study went on to conclude that based on the results, it would âstrongly suggest that public defender representation is associated with improved case outcomes.â
Public defenders are licensed attorneys, but they are not specialized and because of a high turnover of clients may not have the solid field experience a seasoned private attorney has. Using a public defender is like going to a family doctor when you really need a heart surgeon.
You can request the court for a new public defender. The judge in charge of your case will then switch public defenders on your case. If you are successful, the judge will appoint a new public defender to represent you.
First and foremost, the most important job of your criminal defense attorney is to fight for you and defend you in the court of law. According to the American Bar Association, the primary responsibility of a criminal defense attorney is to advocate for their clients and defend their rights.
Differentiating Between Private Attorneys and Public Defenders. A public defender is a governmental employee and are appointed for you when you cannot afford a private lawyer. They are an integral part of the US justice system. The constitution recognizes your civil right to have competent legal representation.
Benefits of a Public Defendant. A public defender is assigned to you for free when you are facing a criminal charge. If the state determines that you are unable to hire a private defense lawyer they will assign a public lawyer to your case. When you have legal defense assigned to your case you can avoid the hefty private-sector lawyer fees.
Because they work in different cities and counties in different courtrooms they will be able to have access to custom resources that will prove beneficial to you.
A public defendant has a high probability of taking a quick plea deal due to their busy schedule so they can move on to another case. They offer the best services. A private attorney depends on their client's recommendations to get more business.
Private attorneys are available to you within the duration of your case. An excellent attorney has resources that can help out with your case. The more resources they have the better the outcome of your case.
A public defender will see your case as just another case in their day-to-day routine. It is not unlikely for them to have a heavy caseload of over 25 to 50 cases in a day.
When you hire a private attorney they work with a team of experts to prove your innocence in a case. They work with private investigators, private laboratories, and as well provide expert witnesses to testify in your case. They have empathy.
Another disadvantage of having a public defender is that the client does not have the choice of lawyer. The court appoints the lawyer.
Advantages of Hiring a Public Defender. A public defender is appointed to defendants who cannot afford to hire a private lawyer and who requests one to be appointed. Therefore, the defendant does not have to pay for his or her lawyer, which can otherwise be very expensive. Public defenders are familiar with a variety of criminal cases ...
A criminal defendant generally has two main options: a public defender or a private lawyer. There are pros and cons of either decision. He or she must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages before making a final decision.
These dynamics can make it so that they may make mistakes with cases or not have as much time to prepare. Due to possibly juggling hundreds of cases at a time, a public defender may have limited amounts of time to actually meet with clients.
Private lawyers usually do not have nearly as many cases as public defenders. This allows them to have more one on one time with clients. This time can be used to get better acquainted with the defendant and to discover information that can aid the defense.
He or she must decide whether to take a punishment recommended by a prosecutor. Possibly the most important decision is who he or she should use as a lawyer.
When hiring a private lawyer, a criminal defendant can meet with a lawyer and determine whether he or she wants to hire the lawyer. He or she can decide on a different lawyer.
If defendersâ bias causes them to doubt their clientsâ innocence, it could lead to them spending less time on their clientâs cases. Professors Song Richardson and Philip Atiba Goff wrote in a 2013 article for the Yale Law Journal: â [Defenders] may expend more effort on cases in which they believe their client is factually innocent.â
The Death Penalty Disproportionately Hurts People of Color With Intellectual Disabilities, Like Pervis Payne. In more than 130 cases involving death sentences that were overturned because of intellectual disability, more than 80% involved people of color.
Public Defendersâ Biases May Contribute to Wrongful Convictions. According to the Innocence Project, 69 percent of DNA-based exonerees in the United States are people of color.
According to the Marshall Project, defense attorneys are not immune to the racial and ethnic biases that are most often attributed to police and prosecutors, and these biases may subconsciously compel them to disregard their clientsâ innocence claims and encourage guilty pleas. â [Bias] might manifest in whether the defender believes in ...
The biggest problem with a public defender is their case load. Now, this isnât their fault. Our justice system doesnât always work as intended. The number of public defenders is much smaller than it should be, therefore requiring each attorney to take on a massive case load. On average a public defender has 25% less time to devote to a case than is necessary to do a thorough job. It âs hard to get in touch with your court appointed attorney except on the day of your trial.
The idea behind a public defender is to provide legal counsel to those who can not afford it. If you are poor, the court will appoint a lawyer to your case. However, if you do have enough money, the state expects you to pay for your attorney. Secondly, public defenders work with the same judges and prosecutors every day.
The only con of hiring a private attorney is the cost. However, you often get what you pay for in life. A public defender vs private attorney varies wildly when it comes to cost. The cost of your private attorney will depend on the type of charges and the amount of work that he/she expects to undertake.
Another benefit of a private lawyer is access to more defense possibilities. Because the defendant is paying for the legal services, a lawyer can use expert witnesses or private laboratories to help their case like with the new Marijuana DUI testing.
On average a public defender has 25% less time to devote to a case than is necessary to do a thorough job. It âs hard to get in touch with your court appointed attorney except on the day of your trial.
Having more resources at their disposal will often mean a better outcome in your case.
Having the right counsel could mean the difference between a guilty or not guilty verdict. If you are facing any serious criminal charges or have been falsely accused than your best bet is to hire an attorney. While the upfront cost may be greater when hiring an attorney, the benefits will certainly outweigh the costs.
Being overworked by handling perhaps dozens of cases at a time, a public defender also may be more prone to making mistakes â mistakes which could cost a defendant dearly when he or she comes to trial.
Also, by trying to âplead outâ as many cases as possible in order to ease their own caseload, public defenders may fail to take advantage of well-considered legal strategies to reduce a charge or even to get a charge dismissed before trial , or to reduce punishment after a guilty plea.
Also, having a heavy caseload sometimes means a public defender is more likely to recommend a plea bargain agreement, also known as a âplea deal.â. That avoids a trial by having the defendant plead guilty before a trial in exchange for certain considerations, such as a reduced sentence.
If the public defender proves to be unsatisfactory, it may be difficult for a defendant to get a different court-appointed lawyer. Such public defenders are employees of the government, and they tend to earn less than private attorneys.
Unlike public defenders, private lawyers tend to have a more focused caseload and have more time to spend with each client. This helps them to gain information and build an effective defense, while pinpointing flaws in the case of prosecutors â flaws which could enable a private lawyer to get a charge reduced or even dismissed, with no need for a trial.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that public defenders handle as many as 590 cases in one year. But the American Bar Association recommends that defense attorneys handle no more than 150 felony cases in one year. Fordham University also reports that public defenders earn only about one-third what private attorneys make.
A private lawyer also should have more legal resources to protect a defendantâs rights. He or she may engage an expert witness to testify in support of the defendant, or get a private lab to test the evidence.
We also instituted some practical safeguards: Public defenders are encouraged to seek feedback from colleagues about potential biases and use checklist tools that ask questions such as âhow would I handle this case different if my client was another race or had a different social background?â And we combat our own biases by getting to know our clients and their families. It is then they become individuals and not just criminal defendants.
I also began reading studies on how defense lawyers were affected by implicit bias. One study showed that defense attorneys in death penalty cases paired pictures of white-skinned faces with stereotypically good words; they paired âbadâ words with black faces. The study also found that 88 percent of U.S. attorneys are Caucasian and the vast majority of attorneys have âautomatic reactions that make associating white with good easier than associating white with bad.â This made me realize that black clients had an extra obstacle to obtain justice because their lawyersâ biases could affect how hard the lawyer pushed for them.
The good news is that the research shows that as people become aware of their unconscious biases, and are reminded of them regularly, they can correct for them.
Jeff Adachi serves as the elected Public Defender of San Francisco.
But I quickly learned that public defenders are not immune from stereotypes and perceptions that influence our decision-making process.
Decades of research has shown that we all possess biases that we are not consciously aware of, which affect our understanding, actions and decisions. Dozens of studies have shown that police officers, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys suffer from implicit biases, and that it affects the outcomes in criminal cases. It is likely one of the reasons non-white Americans are disproportionately arrested and sentenced. Lawyers may decide to argue a point, such as whether the defendantâs actions were reasonable, based on how they perceive a client.
That being said, the biggest, biggest difference between using the public defender and hiring your own attorney is probably the amount of time each attorney can devote to your case. The private attorney is going to be able to devote much more time to your case generally than the public defender.
The likelihood of you knowing the court and you knowing the laws, you knowing the system, is extremely small to begin with and you knowing it better than a prosecutor is almost non-existent. Number two is, as the defendant, you are emotionally involved.
The private attorney is going to be able to work up the case much better. He's not going to sit down there. Unfortunately, sometimes public defenders, because they're doing so much criminal defense work, they've got to move their cases.
An Attorney Who Represents Themselves Has a Fool For a Client. The better alternative is to say, âEven though you may think you have a good defense, a better alternative may be to take a plea because the evidence is likely to get you convicted.â.
In many respects, using the public defender is better than hiring an attorney who doesn't devote a large percentage of his or her practice to doing criminal defense work. If you're going to hire your real estate attorney to represent you on a criminal matter, you're probably better off using the public defender because your real estate attorney doesn't know the law as well, has never tried a case perhaps, doesn't know the court, doesn't know the prosecutors, and these are all very important factors. You may be better off using the public defender than hiring an attorney that doesn't know what they're doing in the criminal courtroom and doesn't devote a lot of his practice to the criminal law. That being said, the biggest, biggest difference between using the public defender and hiring your own attorney is probably the amount of time each attorney can devote to your case. The private attorney is going to be able to devote much more time to your case generally than the public defender. The public defender, when they come to court, they may have 20 cases they have to deal with that day whereas the private attorney, you may be the only case.
Public defenders are a type of court-appointed counsel. The terms are used interchangeably a lot. (This article is no exception.) Both are paid with public funds but their working arrangements differ.
If, on the other hand, a conflict of interest arises that could compromise your lawyerâs ability to represent you, your appointed counsel has a duty to present this conflict to the judge. For example, if the prosecutor includes a former client of your lawyer on its potential witness list, your lawyer would be caught between their duty of loyalty to the former client and their duty to zealously represent you, which could include cross-examining the former client. Your lawyer would have to explain this conflict to the judge. In these circumstances, courts readily give new counsel additional time to prepare your case.
How a Lawyer Gets Appointed. When defendants are arrested, they must be brought before a judge within a specified period of time. This appearance is known as an arraignment or initial appearance. At that time, a judge will ask defendants if they can afford an attorney.
Appointed lawyers come from either a public defenderâs office or from a panel of local private attorneys approved by the court. Do not assume that an appointed lawyer will be less capable than a private attorney you pay. Appointed counsel may perform as well as, or even better than, a private attorney.
If you're unhappy with appointed counsel but donât have the means to hire a private attorney, you can request a different attorney. But, in general, this option should be a last resort when you cannot resolve your disagreements. Learn more in Before You Fire Your Court-Appointed Lawyer or Public Defender.
If you're detained in jail while awaiting trial, don't discuss your case with fellow detainees. They might provide your information to law enforcement to help themselves.
Appointed counsel have the ability to ask the court to pay for more than just their fees. If they believe that your defense requires an expert witness, like a fingerprint examiner or an accountant, they can apply to the court for funds to cover such expenses.
Explicit attitudes are easier to change because they are consciously accessible and more easily modified , but implicit attitudes can and do change. Our attitudes are a reflection of the world around us, our experiences, the groups we connect with and our openness to differences. As Americans observe the United Statesâ first, non-white President leading their country, perhaps they will develop a heightened awareness of the increasing diversity within their communities. Those with an interest in social psychology and its influence in the American legal system will therefore have a heightened interest in how this will affect key players in the courtroom.
Under ideal conditions, jury decisions should be quite effortful and thus less subject to the influences of non-conscious processes. For example, to the extent that a courtroom is a cognitively-demanding place that taxes jurorsâ cognitive resources, their implicit attitudes are more likely to predict guilt-related judgments. Moreover, instructions to suppress thoughts (e.g., a judgeâs instructions to ignore information or âput attitudes asideâ) can, ironically, make those thoughts hyper-accessible because of rebound effects, thereby increasing the application of jurorsâ stereotypes and prejudices. And more generally, jurors who are relatively unmotivated may just not engage in effortful judgment and decision-making in the first place, such as in a June 2008 mistrial in Sydney, Australia, where jurors hearing a case involving a possible life sentence played Sudoku instead of paying attention to the proceedings because they were bored.
In order to better understand how strong existing attitudes are and how they affect decisions and behavior, social psychologists developed the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) 1 Using reaction times to attitudes or concepts related to social groups (e.g., âjoyâ or âawfulâ in response to photographs of Black and white faces), the test assesses how quickly one associates positive and negative concepts with that social group. The IAT, after researchers collected data from millions of people, shows that bias is pervasive: The Black-White race test revealed that 75 to 80 percent of white and Asian Americans implicitly prefer whites over blacks (Project Implicit, 2008).
With the election and inauguration of our nationâs first biracial President, some have questioned whether the United States has finally quashed its ubiquitous problems with racial bias. Though Americans have made tremendous progress in their acceptance of differences, social psychological research indicates we arenât there yet. The study of bias has gone âunderground,â examining how implicit attitudes â that is, those feelings and beliefs outside of our awareness â are still negative toward minority groups as reflected in our reactions and outward behaviors toward others. When it comes to race, religion or gender, most people think they can report what their opinions are â but what about their unconscious biases? While they consciously believe they do not have biases, many negative attitudes remain under the surface influencing their decisions, feelings and behaviors. While a jurorâs explicit attitudes are certainly a factor in the courtroom, his or her implicit biases may play a more subtle, yet equally weighty, role in voir dire, jury selection, jurorsâ attitudes and trust toward attorneys or witnesses and even judicial rulings.
While they consciously believe they do not have biases, many negative attitudes remain under the surface influencing their decisions, feelings and behaviors. While a jurorâs explicit attitudes are certainly a factor in the courtroom, his or her implicit biases may play a more subtle, yet equally weighty, role in voir dire, jury selection, ...
Although no empirical tests exist for this effect in a courtroom, we can extrapolate this phenomenon to a jury trial where one of the attorneys is non-white or speaks with a hint of an accent, or the plaintiff in a discrimination case is Muslim. Maybe the Muslim plaintiff receives a lower damage award than if he were Protestant, or maybe the jurors with stronger negative implicit attitudes toward a racial group distrust the minority expert witness more than they would have if he were white.
Implicit biases are beginning to play a larger role in employment cases. In fact, some federal courts have shown a willingness to accept implicit bias as evidence in employment cases to certify all the employees within a group (e.g., women) as a class. Although social psychologists would not contend that implicit attitudes and prejudices are ...