Judges on 4th Remember Gideon by Asking for Shorter Briefs

No, this picture has nothing to do with Gay Pride Weekend in Fort Lauderdale. First a blog about Gideon's anniversary, now a 4th District Court of Appeal ruling that too much of Gideon is not a good thing. In today's Sun Sentinel, a piece by Dianna Cahn lamenting the jurists' complaint that they need to limit the number of pages in post conviction briefs in non capital cases.

Say the justices who campaigned for their jobs by the way, the growing number of lengthy motions to the court by convicts can hinder rather than enhance justice. Not feeling lots of sympathy here, sorry.

The evidence that led to a guilty verdict in Alan Hedrick's murder trial was so "overwhelming" that an appeals court declared his 130 pages of arguments claiming an unfair trial to be not only without merit but "unfounded," and "abusive" of the process. But wait a second, team, the guy did this on his own. He had no freaking lawyer.

While the court was concluding that the "defendant's abusively lengthy post-conviction filings which raised unfounded claims of prosecutorial misconduct and paranoid allegations of vast conspiracy by government officials were wholly without merit," somewhere somehow you gotta note the dude was acting alone.

In January 2005, after his conviction, Hedrick — acting as his own attorney — filed a 109-page motion raising 24 claims alleging he had not received a fair trial or a proper defense. He then filed another motion through a lawyer with more allegations, the opinion states. The trial judge held hearings on two of the claims, then rejected the rest. The appeals court upheld those decisions.

The appellate judges added that the rule for post-conviction relief "was intended to provide relief for a very narrow class of serious errors that could not be corrected on direct appeal." Instead, they said, these motions are now filed in almost every case, forcing a search for a possible needle in a haystack. And I am supposed to feel sorry for them? Whoa, hold the horses. Okay, impose page limits like you do with attorneys. Go right ahead.

After all, 'pro se' litigants are a pain in the ass, right. See that Mr. Gideon, see how we are remembering you on your anniversary? And Bruce Winick jumps right in as an echo, chiming it would be a good thing to reduce 'frivolous claims.' Because why, the Gideons of the world are all frivolous?

How about this? How about establishing an Office of the Public Advocate, and turning each and every pro se appeal over to a law clerk, or law clinic, to effectively summarize and weed out the arguments advanced by the frustrating 'pro se' petitioners, but insuring that they get their claims and arguments heard nevertheless. I know they suck, they are long, they are discombobulated, they are a mess, they are compounded, they are complicated. But sometimes there are diamonds in the rough. And it's your job to read them. OK, impose limits not restraints; impose regulations, not restrictions; but don't whine about them.

All we are saying, is give 'pro se' a chance.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/custom/consumer/sfl-flbpostconvictionappeal0323sbmar23,0,5460329.story

On Gideon's Anniversary, Court Appointed Federal Lawyers Get a Raise

Let's begin Monday by acknowledging a few intriguing notes.

Friday, I believe, was the 46th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court's 1963 decision holding that states have a constitutional obligation to provide court-appointed lawyers for indigent criminal defendants. Charged with breaking and entering into a Panama City, Florida, pool hall, Clarence Earl Gideon Gideon, was denied his request that an attorney be appointed to represent him. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that defense counsel is "fundamental and essential" to a fair trial.

"In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him," Justice Hugo L. Black wrote for the court. "This seems to us to be an obvious truth."

Gideon spawned systems for court appointment of criminal defense lawyers in every state and in the federal courts. But those systems are not without problems. At the state level, ensuring adequate funding is an ongoing battle. And for the lawyers who take court-appointed cases, ensuring adequate compensation is a whole other battle. Hourly rates paid to court-appointed lawyers remain well below private-market rates.

That said, private lawyers who take court-appointed cases in the federal system just got a pay raise. Last week, James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, issued a memorandum directing the federal courts to increase the hourly rates and case maximums.

As of March 11, blogger Robert Ambrogi reports, the hourly rate for non-capital cases went from $100 to $110. For capital cases, the hourly rate went from $170 to $175. The maximum that a lawyer can bill for a case went from $7,800 for a felony trial to $8,600 and from $2,200 for a misdemeanor trial to $2,400. The maximum for a felony appeal is now $6,100, up from $5,600, and for a misdemeanor appeal $6,100, up from $5,600. The federal Office of Defender Services has detailed information about the new rates and maximums.

Here's the case that made history:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/