Opinion ID: 1163854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Second. Does section 987.8 of the Penal Code place an impermissible burden on the exercise of a defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial or act as a deterrent to effective representation by counsel?

Text: No. Defendant argues that the fees of counsel for services rendered in a jury trial are higher than they would be for services rendered in a nonjury trial and that therefore a defendant for whom counsel has been appointed would, because of the possibility that he would be charged with the fee or part of it, be discouraged from seeking a jury trial and that, as a result, section 987.8 places a condition upon his exercise of a constitutional right. This argument would be more forceful with respect to a nonindigent defendant who possessed limited resources, but who employed counsel and knew that he would be liable for the full amount of the fees charged by his counsel, than with respect to a defendant for whom counsel is appointed and who will be required to pay only that part of the counsel's fees which the court determines he has the financial ability to pay. In any event, there is no merit to defendant's contention because it is not required that no burden at all be placed on a defendant's constitutional rights; it is only an excessive burden that is impermissible, and no excessive burden has been shown here. For instance, it is obvious that the danger of impeachment by evidence of a prior felony conviction places a heavy burden on a previously convicted defendant's exercise of his right to testify in his own behalf. It is nevertheless settled that such burden on the right to testify in one's own behalf does not deny the defendant due process or infringe on his right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. ( People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441, 453-454 [99 Cal. Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]; People v. Modesto, 62 Cal.2d 436, 453-454 [42 Cal. Rptr. 417, 398 P.2d 753].) The burden which defendant suggests exists here is clearly no more excessive than the example given. Defendant further argues that section 987.8 acts as a deterrent to effective representation by counsel, because, in order to avoid increasing the costs which may ultimately be recouped from his client, counsel may not thoroughly investigate or prepare his client's case. The primary responsibility of appointed counsel is to see that the accused receives an adequate defense; and defendant's argument assumes, with no reasonable basis for the assumption, that counsel will not ethically meet such responsibility.