NCJ Number
34457
Date Published
1976
Length
907 pages
Annotation
THIS REPORT ANALYZES THE LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL IMPACT OF THE 1972 SUPREME COURT'S 'ARGERSINGER' DECISION, WHICH EXTENDED GUARANTEED LEGAL COUNSEL TO MISDEMEANANTS AND PETTY OFFENDERS IF IMPRISONMENT IS A POSSIBLE PENALTY.
Abstract
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IN 1972 HELD THAT 'ABSENT A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER, NO PERSON MAY BE IMPRISONED FOR ANY OFFENSE...UNLESS HE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT HIS TRIAL,' ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN WAS WIDELY GREETED AS A CRUCIAL EXTENSION OF THE GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT DECISION TO NONFELONY OFFENDERS. THIS DECISION ESTABLISHED A LEGAL ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENT THAT FAR EXCEEDED STATE AND LOCAL RESOURCES PROVIDED FOR INDIGENT REPRESENTATION. THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES PROVIDES A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF ARGERSINGER'S EFFECTS THROUGHOUT THE NATION'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE AUTHORS CAREFULLY INTERPRET THE COMPLEX ISSUES OF THIS LANDMARK DECISION, DOCUMENT PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PRESENT LEGAL DEFENSE AND CRIMINAL LAW STRUCTURES, AND DEVELOP A SYSTEMATIC AND CHALLENGING PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ARGERSINGER DECISION. THIS TEXT IS BASED ON A 1973 STUDY BY THE BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE WHICH WAS TO REPORT ON THE PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN, TO PREPARE AND RECOMMEND SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF SOME OF THE STUDY'S MAJOR PROPOSALS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE FOLLOWUP STUDY WORK WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS. EXTENSIVE FIELDWORK FOR THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN FOUR JURISDICTIONS - BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA; BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; CLEVELAND, OHIO; AND SACO, MAINE - AND MORE LIMITED FIELDWORK WAS DONE IN FIVE OTHERS. THE RESULTS SHOWED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARGERSINGER DECISION HAS GENERALLY BEEN TOKEN IN NATURE, THAT INDIGENCY STANDARDS ARE DISPARATE AND HAVE NOT BEEN UNIFORMLY APPLIED, THAT WAIVER OF COUNSEL IS OFTEN ENCOURAGED, THAT COUNSEL IS OFTEN ILL-PREPARED, AND THAT FEW REAL EFFORTS HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN TO APPLY THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ARGERSINGER THROUGH STATE LEGISLATION OR THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF DEFENSE SYSTEMS. THIS TEXT OPENS WITH A BROAD ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING STATE OF DEFENSE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES. THE AUTHORS THEN PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF ARGERSINGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERPRETING ITS MANDATE AND OF IDENTIFYING AND SUGGESTING APPROACHES FOR ANSWERING THE IMPORTANT ISSUES NOT FULLY RESOLVED IN THE OPINION. MODEL COURT RULES FOR IMPLEMENTING KEY ASPECTS OF ARGERSINGER AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS ARE ALSO PROPOSED. THE EFFECT OF ARGERSINGER ON THE BAR IS EXAMINED THROUGH DISCUSSIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVENESS, FINANCIAL ELIGIBILITY FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL, AND THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN PROMOTING PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES AND NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO STIMULATE CHANGE IN LOWER STATE COURTS. LEGISLATIVE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DECISION ARE EXAMINED, AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES SUCH AS PRETRIAL DIVERSION, DECRIMINALIZATION, AND ALTERNATIVE FORUMS FOR DEALING WITH MINOR CRIMES ARE DISCUSSED. FINALLY, PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS FACING PLANNERS ARE EXPLORED, AND A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH FOR THEM TO TAKE IN IMPLEMENTING ARGERSINGER IS OFFERED. FOR THE READER'S CONVENIENCE, USEFUL DOCUMENTATION MATERIALS, INCLUDING THE FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION, ARE CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIXES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARGERSINGER WILL REQUIRE: 1) SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCIES AND THE CREATION OF NEW CRIMINAL DEFENSE SERVICES ALONG WITH NEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PRIVATE BAR; 2) LEGISLATIVE REFORM TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF OFFENSES AND TO DECRIMINALIZE OTHERS; 3) NEW RULES OR STATUTES TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IMPLICIT IN ARGERSINGER; 4) NEW GUIDELINES TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR NONFELONY REPRESENTATION; AND 5) THE COMMITMENT OF NEW RESOURCES TO NONFELONY DEFENDER SERVICES. FOR THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT, SEE NCJ-30500. (SNI ABSTRACT)