Wainwright while candidly acknowledging the gulf that exists today between the promise of that ruling and the practical effect of it for millions of Americans. Over and over again, Department officials at the highest levels have issued proclamations praising the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gideon v. If you spend any time at all at the Justice Department’s website you’ll notice that the Obama Administration has been quite vocal in recognizing that the constitutional right to counsel plays in our justice systems. His trial judge, the justices concluded, should have delayed the trial but did not "abuse his discretion" when he didn't. Miller, the court said, got a fair trial. All of this, the state supreme court declared, satisfied the defendant's constitutional right to counsel first expressed in Gideon v. Miller never had a chance to present his best defense, whatever it was, and was quickly convicted. To their credit, prosecutors did not oppose the adjournment, but of course they did not complain when it was denied by the judge. The trial proceeded. He bore the brunt of the judge's frustration. Lost in the middle of this turf war was Miller. The judge was frustrated, court records revealed, with the "higher ups" in the public defenders office. Twice, the trial judge refused the request even though there were other cases he could have tried during that time. He had his docket schedule to worry about, the judge said, and the case was not complex. Twice, the defense attorney asked the trial judge for a continuance so that he could adequately prepare for trial. He didn't know what his client would say on the witness stand. He never spoke to any witnesses, or to Miller's former attorney, or to investigators in the public defender's office. The lawyer had not tried a criminal case in seven years and had been appointed to Miller's case only four days before trial. Terrence Miller, four justices of the state supreme court-over a lone dissent-affirmed the conviction of a man indicted on drug charges who met his lawyer for the first time for a few minutes in a stairwell at the courthouse on the morning of trial. Sadly, it's not big news today when our nation's judges permit a person's fair trial rights to be violated in a way that both shocks the conscience and violates the Constitution. It was just another opinion, about another indigent criminal defendant whose case was processed through a justice system that was relentlessly more concerned with efficiency than with justice. Earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that didn't generate much publicity in the Garden State or anywhere else.
0 kommentar(er)
