NCJ Number
92217
Date Published
1981
Length
66 pages
Annotation
This comparative analysis of the effectiveness of an experimental public defender program and the currently used judicare defense system (private counsel paid from public funds) considers court procedures, client contact, outcomes, sentences, patterns of discussion with Crown counsel, and lawyer work patterns.
Abstract
Clients of public defense counsel and judicare counsel experienced guilty outcomes at about the same rate, but there were differences in the procedures used. Public defense counsel pleaded their clients guilty more often than judicare counsel, while judicare counsel went to trial more often; however, when guilty pleas and determinations of guilt were combined, there was little difference in the overall rate of guilty outcomes for the two modes of delivering legal aid. Public defense clients received fewer jail sentences than judicare clients, while judicare clients received more stays of proceedings or withdrawals of charges. Public defense counsel engaged in more discussions with prosecutors, resulting in more guilty pleas and Crown recommendations for sentences. Public defense counsel made contact with clients earlier than judicare counsel, and although the public defense attorneys exhibited some individualized legal defense characteristics, work patterns such as discussions with Crown, entering pleas or going to trial, and sentences received were very similar. Given that minimal performance standards are maintained, it can be concluded that the public defense mode of delivering criminal legal aid should provide more continuous representation and fewer jail sentences than the judicare mode, as well as fewer trials. Tabular data are provided. For other reports from this evaluation, see NCJ 92216 and 92221-22.