PITTSBURGH - Poor people must be allowed to sue for enforcement of their right to legal counsel, according to an argument being made today in a Pennsylvania courtroom.

Four years ago, the ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully sued Luzerne County on behalf of the county's chief public defender and several defendants. The suit maintained that the public defender's office was so understaffed that it could not provide adequate criminal defense services. But rather than reform, the county fired the public defender and challenged the right of the defendants to sue.

Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said that like anyone else, indigent criminal defendants can ask the court to enforce their rights.

"If you are threatened with a violation of your constitutional rights, you can try to go to court to stop that from happening," she said. "You can get an order from a court to change the situation so your rights aren't violated."

The county has argued that as long as defendants have a lawyer assigned to their case, they must first be convicted before they can appeal their case, claiming their lawyer did a poor job. However, Roper pointed out that without a public defender who has the time to look at their case and argue for reduced bail or no bail at all, indigent defendants are penalized before they even get to trial.

"You have people sitting in jail," she said, "losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their children just because they can't make bail."

The result, she said, is that courts become "plea mills" where defendants plead guilty just to get out of jail.

Unlike most states, Pennsylvania has no state public defender office. That means indigent defense is handled by the counties. So according to Roper, poor people charged in rich counties may get an adequate defense.

"But in poorer counties they don't," she said. "And whether you get a public defender who even has time to remember your name will depend on where you live."

If the state Supreme Court finds that defendants in Luzerne County do have the right to sue, the issue of the county's obligation to provide an adequate defense may still take years to resolve.

More information is online at aclupa.org.


get more stories like this via email

It's being called a historic milestone - 200 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death since 1973, what's known as the modern era of capital punishment.

The exonerees were wrongfully convicted, because of misconduct from government officials or other factors, and then set free after being behind bars - sometimes for decades.

Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said cases like this have been devastating not just for individual families, but for the nation.

"Communities really lose confidence in the integrity of the legal system," said Maher, "and its ability to respond appropriately and keep them safe."

Half of the public now believes the U.S. unfairly applies the death penalty, according to the latest polling. But a majority of Americans still favor death sentences for those convicted of murder.

Capital punishment is illegal in West Virginia, and the state's last execution was more than 60 years ago. But there have been efforts to reinstate it this year.

And a jury recommended federal death sentences for two Mountain State residents in 2007, which were later overturned.

Nationwide, Maher said far more than 200 people have likely been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, in part because of challenges with the legal appeal process.

"Once someone is convicted and sent to prison, that burden then shifts to them to prove that they're innocent," said Maher. "And that's very difficult to do without a good lawyer. And it's also very difficult to do because of the operation of the law."

The Death Penalty Information Center says two-thirds of those exonerated have been people of color.

President Joe Biden campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty, but his administration has taken few steps to do so.




get more stories like this via email

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to reexamine the life without parole sentences of three men who have spent two decades in prison, convicted of murder at ages 18, 19 and 20.

The justices will consider several factors, including the age and immaturity of the individuals, their family and home environment and the circumstances of the crimes. In 2022, the Court ruled mandatory no-parole sentences for 18-year-olds convicted of murder violated the state constitution's prohibition on "cruel or unusual" punishment. It will now decide whether to extend the ruling to 19- and 20-year-olds.

Quinn Yeargain, associate professor of law at Michigan State University, supports the court's decision to review the cases.

"There's a good amount of literature out there suggesting that people who are in their late teens and even going into their early twenties, their brains are not fully developed," Yeargain pointed out. "That's sort of the basis of this constitutional challenge."

Critics of reducing life sentences for young offenders argued it is contradictory to claim individuals old enough to vote, marry and obtain abortions without parental consent should not be held fully accountable for their serious crimes.

The high court will also look at how the offenders dealt with police and prosecutors and whether they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Yeargain emphasized it is not about giving someone a "get out of jail free card." He said Michigan's parole board, which operates within the Department of Corrections, is known for being overly cautious in ensuring individuals seeking parole have genuinely undergone rehabilitation.

"We're talking about people who are still going to be serving very long prison terms, and it's just a statement that maybe they'll be eligible for parole at a certain point," Yeargain emphasized. "If they're able to make a showing that they have changed, they have demonstrated remorse -- then they may be entitled to release at that point."

In Michigan, no-parole life sentences for those 18 or younger are no longer automatic. Judges review their background and potential for rehabilitation, while prosecutors must justify the sentence. The court plans to review the cases in the fall.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has called lawmakers back to the state Capitol this month for a legislative session about public safety.

New Mexico has one of the highest rates of firearm deaths in the country and according to a survey by the website SafeWise.com, state respondents expressed a high level of concern and experience with crime.

Rebecca Edwards, lead safety and tech reporter for SafeWise.com, said more than a third of New Mexicans say they have increased their security or safety measures in the past 12 months.

"People that feel downtrodden, that feel that they don't have opportunities and that can't make ends meet, give up hope, are more desperate to do things to protect themselves," Edwards asserted. "Across the country, people at the bottom don't have a way to get out."

A spokesperson for the governor has said she also will ask lawmakers to raise the penalties for felons caught with firearms. The special session starting July 18 will be the fifth since Lujan Grisham took office six years ago.

Edwards pointed out talk of public safety usually focuses on protection from crime but she feels traditional approaches often do not work over the long haul.

"It feels good to say we're just going to give the police a whole bunch more money, to hire a whole bunch of more officers, but what's the ultimate goal?" Edwards asked. "Are you going to have officers that are trained in more specialized areas? Or what's the emphasis on de-escalation going to be? Nonlethal responses?"

Earlier this year, the Albuquerque Police Department released preliminary 2023 statistics showing an increase in crimes against property and society.

Alan Webber, mayor of Santa Fe, said while Santa Fe's crime rates are lower, all public officials are working to find ways to maintain safety in their communities.

"Sometimes it has to do with the issue of gun and gun violence," Webber noted. "I think we also should focus on ways we can help people who are in public spaces and need to be given mental health services."


get more stories like this via email