The Structure of Federal Public Defense: A Call for Independence

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2017-09-22 DOI:10.31228/osf.io/562sk
David Patton
{"title":"The Structure of Federal Public Defense: A Call for Independence","authors":"David Patton","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/562sk","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Independence is a foundational requirement for any good system of public criminal defense. The Constitution guarantees anyone charged with a crime the right to a defense attorney regardless of ability to pay, and that attorney has the ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense, free from any conflicting outside influence. And yet the system of federal public defense is funded, managed, and supervised by the very judges in front of whom defenders must vigorously defend their clients. The arrangement creates serious constitutional, ethical, and policy problems. This Article proposes a solution: an independent federal defense agency. The agency proposed, the Center for Federal Public Defense (CFPD), would administer federal defenders’ offices, manage the system of appointed private attorneys, and seek funding from Congress for indigent defense services.The Article places the discussion of the proposed organization in the context of other independent agencies that do not fit neatly into a single branch of government, sometimes described as “boundary organizations.” In many ways, federal public defense is ideally suited for placement outside of the formal branches of government. Many congressionally created independent organizations are structurally problematic because of separation-of-powers concerns that arise from the agencies’ enforcement or rulemaking authority. Federal public defense attorneys, however, neither make rules nor enforce them. And because of the nature of their work, they legitimately require insulation from direct government control — including from the Judiciary. In a criminal justice system that relies on its adversarial nature to function properly, it would be inconceivable to have judges decide who is hired in a prosecutor’s office, how much they should be paid, or how and whether prosecutors should investigate individual cases. It would be equally problematic to have the Judiciary act as the voice of the Department of Justice in Congress when explaining resource needs and seeking appropriations. And yet the Judiciary currently does all of those things with respect to the defense function. It should not, and the fix is straightforward: the creation of an independent defender organization.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"335"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/562sk","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Independence is a foundational requirement for any good system of public criminal defense. The Constitution guarantees anyone charged with a crime the right to a defense attorney regardless of ability to pay, and that attorney has the ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense, free from any conflicting outside influence. And yet the system of federal public defense is funded, managed, and supervised by the very judges in front of whom defenders must vigorously defend their clients. The arrangement creates serious constitutional, ethical, and policy problems. This Article proposes a solution: an independent federal defense agency. The agency proposed, the Center for Federal Public Defense (CFPD), would administer federal defenders’ offices, manage the system of appointed private attorneys, and seek funding from Congress for indigent defense services.The Article places the discussion of the proposed organization in the context of other independent agencies that do not fit neatly into a single branch of government, sometimes described as “boundary organizations.” In many ways, federal public defense is ideally suited for placement outside of the formal branches of government. Many congressionally created independent organizations are structurally problematic because of separation-of-powers concerns that arise from the agencies’ enforcement or rulemaking authority. Federal public defense attorneys, however, neither make rules nor enforce them. And because of the nature of their work, they legitimately require insulation from direct government control — including from the Judiciary. In a criminal justice system that relies on its adversarial nature to function properly, it would be inconceivable to have judges decide who is hired in a prosecutor’s office, how much they should be paid, or how and whether prosecutors should investigate individual cases. It would be equally problematic to have the Judiciary act as the voice of the Department of Justice in Congress when explaining resource needs and seeking appropriations. And yet the Judiciary currently does all of those things with respect to the defense function. It should not, and the fix is straightforward: the creation of an independent defender organization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联邦公共辩护的结构:对独立的呼吁
独立性是任何良好的公共刑事辩护制度的基本要求。《宪法》保障任何被指控犯罪的人,无论是否有能力支付,都有权获得辩护律师的帮助,该律师有道德义务提供积极的辩护,不受任何相互冲突的外部影响。然而,联邦公共辩护系统是由法官资助、管理和监督的,辩护人必须在法官面前积极为他们的客户辩护。这种安排造成了严重的宪法、道德和政策问题。这篇文章提出了一个解决方案:建立一个独立的联邦国防机构。该机构提议,即联邦公共辩护中心(CFPD),将管理联邦辩护人办公室,管理指定私人律师系统,并向国会寻求资金,用于贫困的辩护服务。该条款将对拟议组织的讨论放在其他独立机构的背景下进行,这些机构并不完全适合政府的一个部门,有时被称为“边界组织”。在许多方面,联邦公共防御非常适合放在政府正式部门之外。许多国会创建的独立组织在结构上存在问题,因为这些机构的执行或规则制定权限引发了分权问题。然而,联邦公共辩护律师既不制定规则,也不执行规则。由于他们的工作性质,他们合法地要求与政府的直接控制隔绝,包括与司法机关隔绝。在一个依靠对抗性来正常运作的刑事司法系统中,让法官决定谁受雇于检察官办公室,他们应该得到多少报酬,或者检察官应该如何以及是否调查个别案件,这是不可想象的。在解释资源需求和寻求拨款时,让司法机构在国会中充当司法部的代言人同样会有问题。然而,司法机构目前在国防职能方面做着所有这些事情。它不应该,解决办法很简单:建立一个独立的辩护人组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
期刊最新文献
The Health Security Act: coercion and distrust for the market. Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison to Race The Role of History in Constitutional Interpretation: A Case Study Making state civil procedure Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1