Comments on: Vermont v. Brillon: SCOTUS doesn’t get it. http://www.theimbroglio.com/03/10/2009/vermont-v-brillon-scotus-doesnt-get-it/ The ratio of people to cake is too big. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:16:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Joe http://www.theimbroglio.com/03/10/2009/vermont-v-brillon-scotus-doesnt-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-11749 Joe Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:08:54 +0000 http://www.theimbroglio.com/?p=1016#comment-11749 It really is a sad state of affairs. The only thing that might make it better is more people becoming public defenders. Of course, even state and county entities are cutting back on legal stafff, so that probably will not happen anytime soon. It really is a sad state of affairs. The only thing that might make it better is more people becoming public defenders. Of course, even state and county entities are cutting back on legal stafff, so that probably will not happen anytime soon.

]]> By: ti http://www.theimbroglio.com/03/10/2009/vermont-v-brillon-scotus-doesnt-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-11606 ti Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:57:57 +0000 http://www.theimbroglio.com/?p=1016#comment-11606 Agreed that bad facts make bad law and that that is what happened here. And of course I'm not saying that PDs are not as good as private attorneys. Brillon's first attorney sounds like an overworked contract attorney -- he first continued to move his office (!?), then to file a motion that should have already been filed, then to conduct investigation that should have already been done if he'd had enough resources. By that time Brillon was angry with him and wanted a new attorney. Do you blame Brillon? Oh, and that attorney was admitting to the court he wasn't ready for trial but the court denied the third continuance. So Brillon was in a shit spot. He either had to go to trial w/o effective counsel or make a fuss and get a new attorney and more time. He chose the latter. Brillon continued to complain of lack of communication from his subsequent attorneys. Is that Brillon being a problem client? Maybe. Is that appointed attorneys being overworked and underresourced? Probably. Brillon's 4th and 5th attorneys withdrew because they were quitting criminal defense or their contracts with the defender's office were ending. Does that have anything to do with Brillon being a problem client? Not really. Should he suffer because of staffing issues in the court-appointed defense system? No. Did he? Sounds like it. I'm all for holding court-appointed counsel to the highest standards but the fact remains that indigent defense is vastly underfunded nationwide. So what do we do? Punish clients for systemic failures? Great. Agreed that bad facts make bad law and that that is what happened here. And of course I’m not saying that PDs are not as good as private attorneys. Brillon’s first attorney sounds like an overworked contract attorney — he first continued to move his office (!?), then to file a motion that should have already been filed, then to conduct investigation that should have already been done if he’d had enough resources. By that time Brillon was angry with him and wanted a new attorney. Do you blame Brillon? Oh, and that attorney was admitting to the court he wasn’t ready for trial but the court denied the third continuance. So Brillon was in a shit spot. He either had to go to trial w/o effective counsel or make a fuss and get a new attorney and more time. He chose the latter.

Brillon continued to complain of lack of communication from his subsequent attorneys. Is that Brillon being a problem client? Maybe. Is that appointed attorneys being overworked and underresourced? Probably. Brillon’s 4th and 5th attorneys withdrew because they were quitting criminal defense or their contracts with the defender’s office were ending. Does that have anything to do with Brillon being a problem client? Not really. Should he suffer because of staffing issues in the court-appointed defense system? No. Did he? Sounds like it.

I’m all for holding court-appointed counsel to the highest standards but the fact remains that indigent defense is vastly underfunded nationwide. So what do we do? Punish clients for systemic failures? Great.

]]> By: pal http://www.theimbroglio.com/03/10/2009/vermont-v-brillon-scotus-doesnt-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-11551 pal Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:46:07 +0000 http://www.theimbroglio.com/?p=1016#comment-11551 Whoa. What I'm hearing you say is public defenders are not as good as private attorneys. What I'm reading you write is that Brillon's case was shoveled along from continuance to continuance b/c his four attorneys didn't make the time to prepare his case. Did you actually read the facts of the case? Haven't you ever had the client who will use every tool in his artillery to use and abuse not just the system but you as his attorney? I'm the first one to fall on the sword of a client that *should* have another bite at the apple. I agree that when there is a case that the attorney isn't effective, it should be brought to the Court's attention. But then I'm from the school of thought that bad facts make bad law..... and these were bad facts. Whoa. What I’m hearing you say is public defenders are not as good as private attorneys. What I’m reading you write is that Brillon’s case was shoveled along from continuance to continuance b/c his four attorneys didn’t make the time to prepare his case. Did you actually read the facts of the case? Haven’t you ever had the client who will use every tool in his artillery to use and abuse not just the system but you as his attorney? I’m the first one to fall on the sword of a client that *should* have another bite at the apple. I agree that when there is a case that the attorney isn’t effective, it should be brought to the Court’s attention. But then I’m from the school of thought that bad facts make bad law….. and these were bad facts.

]]>