"In criminal trials a State can no more discriminate on account of poverty than on account of religion, race, or color. There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has."

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)

"Around the country, defendants find themselves represented by undertrained, unsupported, or overloaded defense counsel. Additional structural problems include courts failing to provide counsel as required by the Constitution or state law; prosecutors pushing defendants to waive the right to counsel or to plead guilty; and judges permitting or even soliciting deficient waivers of the right to counsel.Some judges and elected officials even improperly exert influence over defense counsel. As a whole, the criminal justice system suffers from a lack of oversight and accountability.

Although data on indigent defense systems are limited, it is clear that this crisis has escalated since the Gideon ruling. Public defender programs are underfunded and overburdened. The gap between public defense capacities and need is only growing, yet from 2008 to 2012, total state government funding on public defense changed relatively little, ranging from $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion. Nationwide, prosecutors’ offices receive $3.5 billion more in funding than public defense budgets."

Buckwalter-Poza, R, Making Justice Equal, (Dec.8, 2016)

Issues Facing Indigent Defense

Independence of Public Defense offices
- In many jurisdictions, funding and oversight of Public Defenders comes from the same governmental entity that funds the prosecution and judiciary. This creates an inherent conflict of interest where Public Defenders are considered at-will employees and fear retribution for zealously representing their clients.
Recoupment of attorney's fees from indigent defendants
- The United States Supreme Court held in Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974) that Oregon's partial recoupment of attorney's fees from indigent defendants was constitutional. Many recoupment systems fail to operate within the guidelines established by the Supreme Court, imposing excessive fees on people incapable of paying them.
Insufficient Funding
- Insufficient funding of the indigent defense system creates overworked lawyers with little time to devote to each individual case. Defense attorneys are pressured by the prosecution and the judiciary to quickly "plead out" cases without the opportunity for meaningful investigation into the facts. Insufficient funding causes systemic problems such as:
  - Disparities in pay-In many systems prosecuting attorneys are paid at a higher rate than defense attorneys
  - Lack of support staff-A functioning public defender system needs sufficient support staff which is lacking in many defense systems.
  - Lack of training-Training for public defenders is not as readily available as it is for prosecutors.
  - Expert witnesses-The prosecution has a bevy of experts available who are all paid employees of the state, including forensic analysts, investigators, mental health experts. Funds for defense experts are controlled by the judiciary or the governmental unit that funds the public defender system
- Inconsistency in the delivery of defense services
  - Although the Constitution guarantees that all similarly situated persons should enjoy the equal protection of the law, indigent defense services vary widely from state to state and within each state.