MO Governor ordered to personally defend indigent defendant

ChristianProgressive

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,860
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Jay-...ce=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6315024169803904443

Jay Nixon is a generally good governor, but he's far from perfect. One of his not-so-good decisions has been to chronically under-fund the public defenders' office.

Well the head of the office just fought back. There is a provision in MO law that makes all members of the MO bar subject to being called on to assist the public defenders office at neeed. So now Nixon will be spending time in court doing something that by law he should have arranged the budget to do.

I'll be snickering about this for a week, I'm sure...
 
Nixon's been a pretty good governor overall, holding back the Sinqford (sp?) bought Republicans in the State House. He has botched a few things, like underfunding certain departments and dropping the ball on handling the Ferguson riots.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Jay Nixon is a generally good governor, but he's far from perfect. One of his not-so-good decisions has been to chronically under-fund the public defenders' office.
Click to expand...
And the education spending cuts, and his response to the unrest in Ferguson unrest, and his use of departmental funds to pay his travel expenses, and his response to Syrian refugees....
 
It seemed to me that Nixon is generally trying to do the best he can given the really hard-core Republican-dominated legislature. Some of the stuff that's been proposed in just the last few years is mind-boggling.

It amazes me that in one of the most under-taxed states in the union, the first things on the chopping block are mental health care, education, and the like.
Raising funds in any way is seen as a political sin of the first order, and so we stumble along with homeless lining the streets of St. Louis, crumbling roads and infrastructure, and a mental health-care "system" that just barely manages to function on volunteerism and donations.

That Nixon has signed off on some of these cuts and denied funds to others is a sign that the legislature has a veto-overriding Republican majority so they hold the "nuclear option".
 
ChristianProgressive said:
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Jay-...ce=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6315024169803904443

Jay Nixon is a generally good governor, but he's far from perfect. One of his not-so-good decisions has been to chronically under-fund the public defenders' office.

Well the head of the office just fought back. There is a provision in MO law that makes all members of the MO bar subject to being called on to assist the public defenders office at neeed. So now Nixon will be spending time in court doing something that by law he should have arranged the budget to do.

I'll be snickering about this for a week, I'm sure...
Click to expand...

Can you say Conflict of Interest? I know you could.
 
Bikewer said:
It seemed to me that Nixon is generally trying to do the best he can given the really hard-core Republican-dominated legislature. Some of the stuff that's been proposed in just the last few years is mind-boggling.

It amazes me that in one of the most under-taxed states in the union, the first things on the chopping block are mental health care, education, and the like.
Raising funds in any way is seen as a political sin of the first order, and so we stumble along with homeless lining the streets of St. Louis, crumbling roads and infrastructure, and a mental health-care "system" that just barely manages to function on volunteerism and donations.

That Nixon has signed off on some of these cuts and denied funds to others is a sign that the legislature has a veto-overriding Republican majority so they hold the "nuclear option".
Click to expand...

He's hemmed in by the Hancock Amendment, a pre TEA Party straightjacket that makes it by law nearly impossible to raise taxes.
 
^If that were the case, there could not BE a Public Defender's Office at all, because, being paid by the state, a conflict of interest could be presumed.

The Governor, acting as a trial lawyer, would be bound by the rules of the court and by professional ethics to protect the interests of the defendant he is assigned, not the state.

It's encouraging to see professionals reminded that their licenses and credentials carry duties as well. I'd like to see ALL professional licenses come with a "give back" requirement: lawyers doing public service law, doctors providing health care, etc. It would be one way to reduce costs to low income citizens for expensive professional services.
 
BStrong said:
I very seriously doubt that in any criminal case, from mopery with intent to creep all the way to murder, a sitting Gov. could serve as defense counsel.

It's a grandstand gesture on the part of the CPD.
Click to expand...

Was that....was that a Psych reference?

Your statement makes sense though, it seems like a really bad decision. Even if it is to prove a point.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
^If that were the case, there could not BE a Public Defender's Office at all, because, being paid by the state, a conflict of interest could be presumed.
Click to expand...

Usually there are at least layers of management separating the state funding from those providing indigent defense, but that varies among states. In this case, we are asking the chief executive of the branch responsible for enforcing the law to directly represent someone. As much as I like the idea and applaud the gesture in this case, the directness of the conflict might be a bit much.
The Governor, acting as a trial lawyer, would be bound by the rules of the court and by professional ethics to protect the interests of the defendant he is assigned, not the state.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but we could say that about any lawyer, like if this guy started assigning sitting prosecutors to defend cases. It is the optics that are troubling.
It's encouraging to see professionals reminded that their licenses and credentials carry duties as well. I'd like to see ALL professional licenses come with a "give back" requirement: lawyers doing public service law, doctors providing health care, etc. It would be one way to reduce costs to low income citizens for expensive professional services.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree as to criminal defense. Forcing people who don't want to practice criminal law to handle those cases is a bad idea on a few levels. It would be inefficient, and there would be a higher danger of wrongful convictions than if the case was handled by someone whose practice is criminal defense.

Of course, that assumes a reasonably funded public defender system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom