I’m not saying it is impossible, but it is certainly difficult (unless the PD sells the defendants out). A(n) (elected) PD should act in the best interests of the defendant yet must justify those actions to the electorate, whose interests may be in conflict with those of the defendant. Not an impossible to resolve conflict, but not a good place to be, especially given the nature of politics. “[A]wkward” was the word I used originally and I think it best describes the situation.

(f) Compensation by Third Party. A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.–Rule 4.1-8

Or, in one sentence–a public defender must put the interests of his individual client ahead of the interests of both himself and the public who elected him.; and to not do so is a violation of professional ethics. (Yes, we lawyers have ethics.)

As a lawyer, this seems plainly unethical to me. I work for a public defender agency and we’ve had this question come up from time to time. The answer is ALWYAYS a very simple and quickly reached “we don’t question our clients elligibility, it’s not our job.” When you have a client it’s your job to help them and NOT undermine them in any way. It also treds on attorney client privilege and the inclusive work-product privilege. When you uncover info through investigations or when your client tells you stuff, that info is private and shouldn’t be used to undermine them and make their lives more difficult.

Yes, lawyers have a duty not to facilitate or in some cases allow their clients to lie to the court, but that is only in very extreme circumstances, and they shouldn’t be spending their time investigating whether or not their clients are lying as an end in itself. Just shameful.

From where you are sitting, if you wouldn’t mind standing up, turning 180 degrees and sitting back down again. Thanks.

When someone is accused of committing a crime, said persons rights and freedom are not the only thing in jeopardy.

The office here in Jax had the lowest turnover rate out of the 7 metropolitan offices (Pinnelas, Tampa, Miami, Orlando, Jax, and West Palm and Broward) and is the only one out of the top 4 who is not refusing certain types of cases.

The attorney from the top down are scared for their clients and even more scared about their jobs in this climate and in a legal community this small.

When asked about retention, the standard was not dedication, work performance, or devotion to the office or cause, it was loyalty to him.

That says it all.

In my part of Florida, the south end, elected PDs have not been a problem. For instance, the current PD for my county was one of the top assistant PDs under his predecessor. Of course, we are the liberal end of the state, but Duval County (Jacksonville) isn’t exactly a Republican bastion. Also bear in mind that at least in the larger circuits, the PD is largely a manager, spokesperson and lobbyist for the office, and hardly ever goes into court himself. (Same for the State Attorneys.) Also remember that most prosecutors as well as PDs who go into private practice end up as criminal defense lawyers.

Prediction–McGuinness or one of his (former) colleagues will defeat Shirk handily in the next PD election. Until then, of course, Duval County will have some interesting times ahead of it.

Mr. Shirk seems to be one who loves the taste of that yummy police smegma.

Dammit! We’re not supposed to have cops in this country! At all!

This was decidedly NOT the case under Mr White. He and his predecessor assembled a team of highly qualified attorneys top down, retaining them with incredible success.

The Brenton Butler case was just one example.

90% of the time, if you are going to trial, you are doomed. The Public Defender’s office is a feeble and absurdly overworked defense against the well organized and funded prosecutors office. So there isn’t much to lose here if the PD goes away.

The Public Defender’s true political role is to act as an enabler of the prosecution. They give the unbalanced and unfair proceedings the appearance of justice without actually giving it the substance of justice. “He got his day in court.”

If the PD’s office is destroyed and people get no representation in court at all, only the most rabid law and order voter could consider the system fair. Maybe then, after we see the spectacle of indigent defendants heading to prison without counsel at all people will begin to see the need for reform.

Or perhaps they won’t. Indigent defendants will still go to jail at 90% + conviction rates in court, but at least it will be clear to everyone who cares to see that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Imagine being ideologically opposed to the drug war or capital punishment and then forced to prosecute someone and vice versa.

Eliminate ALL government prosecutors, DAs, etc. Then for every case have an independent, computerized, random drawing for prosecutor and defense attorney. All attorneys admitted to the bar are required to participate. Reimbursement rates set at a level commensurate with the average salary of all employed persons in the area of the trial. Government required to use its resources for both prosecutor and defense.