“Lawyers, Jails, & the Law’s Fake Bargains” by Michael Tigar, excerpts, part2

 

Aachen, Hans von. Allegory. 1598. Oil on copper, 56 x 47 cm. Alte Pinakothek, Munich. Downloaded with express permission from the Web Gallery of Art at http://www.wga.hu from site admin Emil Kren, Ph.D.. Many thanks.

“Lawyers, Jails, and the Law’s Fake Bargains” by Michael  Tigar,  published by the Monthly Review at www.monthlyreview.org/lawrise

            (excerpts from the 15-page article, second instalment, apologies from the blog admin for the excerpted version, blog viewers have a short attention span. )        

        (Michael Tigar is an American University Washington College of  Law Professor  (Constitutional Law; Supreme Court; French legal system; criminal law and procedure; human rights); ; one of the most renowned lawyers in the United States. He has argued seven cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and more than 100 appellate cases; written extensively about litigation, aspects of trial practice, criminal law, the death penalty, and the role of the criminal defense lawyer. His books include Fighting Injustice (ABA, 2002); Federal Appeals: Jurisdiction and Practice; and Examining Witnesses.  Throughout his career, Tigar has been active in pro bono cases, the American Bar Association, continuing legal education programs, and international human rights. During the apartheid period, he went to South Africa to train black lawyers. Prior to joining AU, Tigar served as a professor at the University of Texas Law School)

        Quote “In addition, there are dozens of communities where defendants may be held without bail for weeks at a time, due to crowded court dockets. Because a poor person cannot post cash bond, he or she stays in jail. The racial disparity in arrest patterns is then compounded by the disparity between rich and poor. In these communities, it is often the practice not to appoint counsel until the defendant appears in court after the long delay. By this device, the accused is kept in jail for want of a lawyer to move for low bail or release on personal recognizance. The social consequences of this system are that the jailed accused, though presumed innocent, loses whatever employment he or she may have had, and risks a breakdown in family and community ties.

          Quote “True, the constitution formally guarantees effective assistance of counsel. This ought to be, and could be if properly interpreted, a mechanism for ensuring that the contract between counsel and accused reflects the client’s desires and interests. Not so.

              Quote “In the world of commerce, when a wealthy person hires a lawyer, the lawyer is required to communicate with the client and to provide zealous and diligent representation. If the legal issues involved are complex or specialized, the lawyer must warn the client if he or she lacks the training and experience that may be required. The contract in this setting is dictated by the client’s expressed goals, and the rules of legal ethics operate predominantly to require that the lawyer diligently and skilfully  fulfill the bargain. The legal ethics do, however, require that the lawyer not assist the client in wrongdoing. In the main, however, the state through its courts and agencies supports the fulfillment of the wealthy client’s desires and goals.

           Quote “In sharp contrast, the relationship between the indigent accused and appointed counsel is governed by loose and discretionary standards. In reviewing a case to determine whether counsel was ineffective, the courts give wide latitude to so-called tactical decisions, including decisions not to investigate possible defenses, to refrain from cross-examining witnesses, and to make only token arguments to the jury. As the Supreme Court has said, “judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” “Deferential” to what? To the lawyer’s decision to do less than might be done or than the client would wish.

 XXXXXX

        Quote “This brings us to the contract that is related to that between the appointed lawyer and the client, and that is the plea bargain. A defendant is charged. The appointed lawyer points out that he could remain in jail and wait for trial, probably be convicted, and then spend significant jail time. On the other hand, a guilty plea would probably result in a lesser sentence, and for minor crimes release for “time already served.” The lawyer, because of the nature of his “contract” with the client, is of course in a position to make the dark side of this dream come true, for his indifference and inattention would make conviction quite likely if the case were to be tried.

               Quote “Thus begins a typical scenario in the 90 percent of all criminal cases that end in a plea bargain. The “contract” between the accused and the state follows a ritual form. The accused is asked if he understands the charges. At the lawyer’s prodding he says yes. He is asked if he wishes to waive a trial, and all the rights to summon and cross-examine witnesses that would be involved in a trial. The accused, often sensing that he has no realistic choice, says yes. The judge then seals the bargain and imposes sentence.

          Quote “What’s wrong with this picture? Two main things: the purported consent is unreal, and the accused is not truly informed of the rights he is forfeiting. Recently, prosecutors have added a third dimension to the unfairness by seeking waivers of the right to appeal.

 XXXXXXXXXX

      Quote “The newer wrinkle in all of this is the by-now routine  prosecution insistence that the defendant, as part of the bargain, affirmatively promise never to challenge the plea bargain as unfair. In ordinary commerce, this would be like buying a car after a strong sales pitch, and under pressure to purchase, and being forced to agree that you could not bring the car back to the dealer even if it was lethally unsafe. Some appellate courts are questioning the validity of such agreements, but they often, and perhaps mostly, are upheld.

        Quote “So we are shovelling people into the prisons at this enormous rate. The root causes are no doubt overcriminalization and racially-biased police and prosecution decisions. But the twin and phony contracts between lawyer and client and between client and the state gravely weaken the ostensible constitutional provisions that are designed to provide review and remedy for those sorts of abuses. XXXXX

      XXXXXX” closed-quote.

(second of three excerpted instalments)

teapot

sharptilamsik.jpg Jose “Pinggot” Zulueta. Tilamsik series, first one-man exhibit. Published with express permission from the artist (thanks much!). Asinta images. Right-clicked from http://www.asinta.netfirms.com             

        The march  of law students today to call for the resignation of  Gloria is acronymed ASAR  or ASARAN (Advocacy for …. etc.), coming in the heels of the statement of members of the U.P.Law Community on “Truth and Accountability”.  

                Anyway, I saw this post in Atty. Teddy Te’s blog at www.tedte.blogspot.com

              i wonder what this is all about? (well, actually, i have an idea;  because  of  the publicized  Deanship tussle; i’m just trying to be cute, ha-ha). Atty. Teddy Te gives us  an idea who this person is who doesn’t want the statement on “truth and accountability” to  go around  not on substantive disagreement but on… oh, read the post, he asks rhetorical questions in the end: 

         From Atty. Teddy Te, quote

         “Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like “why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?” or even more minor details like “who gets the credit?” or “whose turn is it before the camera?” But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.” Closed-quote.    

            It’s so  ASAR naman. [i admit i sometimes have my share of pettiness, but during those times, i know i’m being petty and try my best to be professional; at other times i just avoid individuals i don’t like, they’re a waste of time, instead of sowing intrigue that’s unproductive); we go on our merry way and try to rise above  it all (ahem, but i still avoid them, ha-ha), there are things far bigger than ourselves, and i’m publishing this just to alert people about these  politicians and candidates- wannabes, they are the same kind as Gloria] 

            From Atty. Teddy Te’s blog, Thursday, February 21

                    Quote “I have no words . . . (by Atty. Teddy Te)      

                     Quote “. . . to describe just how disappointing it is that some faculty members (I won’t name names here because my source will get into trouble) and students of the law school choose to nitpick instead of 1) being constructive or 2) simply getting out of the way. (For perspective, go to Lobit’s multiply site for her text exchange presumably with some student who, to her credit, she does not identify; for perspective on the faculty member/s, let us just say that media friends have been hounding me for comment on what they have been saying.) 

              

       Quote “Yesterday, the Dean and some members of the faculty and students issued a statement that was carried over the media. It was deliberately sub-titled “A Statement from the UP Law Community” NOT “An OFFICIAL Statement of the UP Law FACULTY AND STUDENTS” or “An OFFICIAL Statement of UP LAW.” To my mind, “community” means a group of people united by some principle or purpose; and those who signed the statement were.

        Quote “Some have said we should have deliberated–we did.       

        Quote “Was everyone invited? Yes.      

        Quote “But not everyone invited chose to go. And I respect that; I respect your silence on the matter–but I would ask that you respect as well the sentiments of those who chose to participate and sign.     

       Quote “I have my first draft which is radically different from the one that came out to show just how deliberated upon the statement was. Truthfully, and the Dean and the others who were there will tell you–I do not completely agree with everything there. For instance, if that were my statement, it would consist only of the following words–‘GLORIA, GET OUT–NOW!!!” But I was writing for a community and, therefore, my own thoughts and opinions and even style of writing would have to be subordinated to what the others felt they wanted.     

         Quote “Were contrary opinions entertained? Yes. I have always held the belief that the Senate investigations have outlived their purpose and should be terminated with dispatch; many who were around did not. So, I respected that and did not put that in the final draft that appeared.    

          Quote “Why did I sign it if it did not exactly reflect what I believed in? Because I believed it was time for UP Law to speak up and because it contained the essential points I wanted said–Gloria must go. Everything else in the statement was a means toward that end.     

        Quote “It is frustrating to see us fighting each other instead of the common enemy right now. That, by itself, is a victory for Gloria and Mike Arroyo and their minions.      

        Quote “Unity cannot be legislated or forced because many times egos get in the way. Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like “why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?” or even more minor details like “who gets the credit?” or “whose turn is it before the camera?” But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.” Closed-quote.