Argersinger v Hamlin - Reels 1, 2, 3, 4

• NCJ Number: 81342
• Author(s): Anonymous
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 0 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Publication Format: Film
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. 4 videotapes, total running time 2 hours and 40 minutes, color, 1 inch.

Annotation

In this videotape conference participants discussed methods the Government can take to improve indigent defense services under the landmark Supreme Court decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin.

Abstract

The Argersinger decision mandated that no person may be imprisoned without counsel at trial. Because much concern arose over how the decision could be implemented in view of the fact that courts are already overburdened, a study was sponsored to determine how the law was implemented in nine jurisdictions around the country. Representatives from LEAA and the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) and others discuss the findings and implications of this study and suggest followup activities that should be conducted as a result. The Director of the Office of Research Programs at NILECJ discusses how this study fits into the overall NILECJ defense service plan, and the Deputy Administrator of Policy Development at LEAA outlines the agency's mission and how it relates to the larger criminal justice system's plans for defense services. A legal aid expert notes that local courts have not made a committment to Argersinger and suggests that a more aggressive advocacy role, a merit selection process for judges, and interdisciplinary training for criminal justice personnel are needed before indigent defense services can be implemented. The moderators of seven workshops held during the conference then reflect on the critical problems raised by the Argersinger decision, highlight new strategies around the country, and suggest new directions for LEAA in the area of defense services. They suggest that the legal profession (1) accept responsibility for its failure to defend indigents effectively, (2) pursue litigation to improve the defense system, (3) press for more statutes to develop standards in this area, (4) monitor the quality of defense performance, (5) encourage law schools to focus more on advocacy training, and (6) look for funding from non-Federal sources. A question and answer session follows the discussions.