The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-23
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
The Argument In Favor Of the Public
Defender.

To The EDITOR or THE SuN-Sir: Your
statement that III any man cannot hire q
lawyer the court assigns counsel TO him,
to be paid out OF the public treasury. and
many conspicuous and able members OF
the bar have served under such designa-
tons In the past" II erroneous. Counsel
fees are not paid to assigned counsel In
criminal cases except in capital cases, In
which instances fee OF $500 is paid to
such counsel.
While conspicuous and able members
Of the bar have defended the accused In
criminal cases on several occasions, such
instances have been very rare and are
rather the exception than the rule. My
contention is that 1t In not fair to de-
PENDANT whose liberty Is at stake to have
thrust upon him n lawyer who IN either
incapable or Indifferent and serving with
out compensation, nor In 1t fair to expec'
that competent. reputable and busy law
yers should devote their time and atten-
ton to the trial Of criminal cases wherein
they receive no compensation.
While II Is true that the presumption
OF innocence attaches to the accused. that
he must be indicted by n grand jury and
tried by a petit jury. there can be no qucs-
ton but that this presumption IL often
swept away entirely by reason OF the
prejudiclal atmosphere created prior tc
and during the trial. Convictions are IRE
aucntly set aside by the appellate courts
because the defendant has not had fair
trial because OF the prejudice created
against him or because his indictment
was not warranted by the facts.
Under present conditions the contest be-
tween the state and the ignorant and poor
defentant Ia unequal Indictments against
innocent men are often too recklessly
found upon insufficient or improper evil
dence. a public defender would tend "a
cqualize these conditions, and would be
an efficlent aid IN tho administration OF
justice. Tho cost OF establishing such
Office would be amply Justified II thereby
the rights and liberties OF those accused
of crime were better ssfeguarded. There
are being presented constantly In the
public press elsring examples Of unfair
trials. unjust convictions and miscarriages
of Justice which amount almost TO public
scandal and tend to bring the sdmlnistra-
ton OF our criminal law into disreputc.
take issue with your statement that
IA situation requiring such a remedy hss
not been shown to exist" or that nobody
seriously be1eves that u does exist
Many newspapers, magazines and distin-
guished lawyers and public men have
described the conditions In our crimins
courts which require change OF the
character suggested. and editorial COM
ment in favor OF the plan has been
abundant 20 disclose n situation that re-
qures such a remedy.
| In Los Angeles tho offlce OF Public De
| fender has been successfully tried out and
has received tho Endorsement Of those who
know the results accomplished by tho ere
alton of such office there. The New Yorl
County Lawyers Association and the
Brooklyn Bar Association have already
appointed special committees to consider
| tho proposition. l have discussed the sub
| ject with Judges. lawyers and others who
are familiar with the existing evils. ant
venture to assert that the proposed plar
| IL not. as you state, the nightmare Of
sentimentalists only" but, on the con
trary. reflects the sober and intelligent
thought OF a large proportion Of our SAT-
and sane population
The proposal to establish . public de-
fender is fundamentally sound, highly
necessary and thoroughly practicable. ant
1t Is hoped that the present agitation II
| its favor will bring about reform which
will elevate our system of criminal pro
cedure, which will tVnd to the ascertain
mAlt OF the truth rather than to an un
equal contest between the prosecution anc
/ the defence, and which will more ade.
quately safeguard the rights of thos,
accused persons who by reason OF theil
! Ignorance, poverty or helplessness are
unable to protect themselves.
! MAYER c. GOLDMAN.
| NEW York, June 90.