All Criminal proceedings
Should all defendants have a right to an attorney in all criminal proceedings? Include municipal courts in your discussion. For example, do you think a defendant in a class C criminal jury or bench trial should be appointed an attorney if they cannot afford one? If you think the system is fine as is, explain why.
- Should defendants have a say in who is chosen as their attorney and why? If not, should there be certain standards for who is appointed to represent a defendant? Explain you answer.
- Take it one step further. A few states are pushing for the appointment of attorneys for indigent person(s) in civil cases where the case involves “basic human needs”. Should Texas pass a law that in civil cases that involve “basic human needs”, an attorney should be appointed for indigent person(s)? If so, this would have to go through the legislative process. Do you think it would pass the legislature in Texas? Would it get public support?
His response-
“1) Like many other parts of the Bill of Rights, the Sixth Amendment aims to expand individual rights at the expense of police and prosecutors. It was designed to shape the contours of criminal justice in the United States. The text implies that defendants in criminal cases are entitled to essential procedural and material protections designed to enable them to a fair trial in an impartial tribunal when the weight of government is brought against them. I totally stand with giving an attorney to a defendant in a class C criminal jury or bench trial if they cannot afford 1 because everyone deserves this right and not everyone is at fault.
2)Definitely, This is a right which needs to be taken seriously. What’s the point of getting an attorney in a capital murder case which will be a court appointed lawyer but that person is not required to have experience with capital murder defenses or appeals at all? There should be lawyers provided by the court that specialize in your crime because that’s what a “fair” trial means in the first place.
3)Equal justice before the law implies equal access to the courts for all litigants, but in reality and in truth, especially in civil jurisdiction, is limited to those who can afford it. Civil litigants, particularly poor civil litigants, face unfair hardship when attempting to gain access to our justice system while attempting to exercise their inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under current federal jurisprudence, citizens have no legal right to an attorney in hearings and court proceedings related to termination of parental rights, civil contempt, civil duty of the mentally ill, paternity, and housing issues, to name a few. While our judicial system has provided lawyers to defendants in criminal cases, this right has not been extended to civil litigants, although some of the problems they face are as life-threatening or as damaging as the prospect of imprisonment or the death penalty. Before we can declare our court system ‘equal’, further progress is needed to ensure that all litigants have meaningful access to the courts. I stand with them getting attorneys from court and I think we all should and Texas should pass this legislature.”