One of the challenges, to put it very lightly, in representing indigent clients is getting judges to allocate sufficient funds for an expert and/or an investigator. The State has at least one investigator assigned to each court and on salary. They work for the prosecutor's 40 hours a week on whatever issues the prosecutors deem necessary of attention. The prosecutors usually aren't at a loss for experts either as it's usually the medical examiner, detective, or nurse who drew the client's blood who are state's witnesses.
The challenge in representing indigent defendants effectively is convincing the judge to allocate enough money so that we can hire our own expert to contest the findings and conclusions of the state's experts. When you balance a person's liberty with a a few hundred dollars you'd think that a person's liberty wins out every time. You might be amazed at how often it does not.
And it doesn't make sense in this system why a person's liberty interest doesn't weigh more heavily than spending some money. It's not as if the money comes from the judge's pockets. After all, they are salaried employees who get a check regardless of whether or nor or how much money they authorize for a defense expert and/or investigator.
I can tolerate being underpaid. What I cannot and will not tolerate is a judge cutting me short on expert and/or investigator funding when I believe it's necessary to an effective defense. In some cases and with a good lawyer who preserves error, it's a reversible due process violation not to provide sufficient funding. Therein is the irony of it all. It's more cost efficient to just allocate sufficient funds for an expert and/or investigator at the outset rather than doing it wrong, having it reversed by the court of appeals, and getting to do it all over again...the right way.
No comments:
Post a Comment