Uniontown Herald Standard. June 25, 2024. Editorial: Pennsylvanians deserve a better indigent defense system In 1966, the U.
S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda vs. Arizona that criminal defendants were entitled to say nothing so as to not incriminate themselves, and they were also entitled to an attorney.
Not too long after, television viewers became familiar with what came to be called the Miranda warning thanks to its recitation on popular series like “Dragnet” and “Adam-12.” Along with a right to silence and a right to attorney, it became widely understood by Americans in all walks of life that if a defendant could not afford an attorney “one will be provided for you.” A question that has long lingered over that valuable right, though, is whether criminal defendants who are being represented by court-appointed attorneys are getting the best possible defense.
Across the country, many public defenders are overworked and underpaid, working with caseloads that don’t allow them to spend much time on each case. In Pennsylvania, counties have been left to fund and oversee public defender offices, and it has resulted in many of them being starved of resources and manpower. That’s the argument the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania puts forward in a lawsuit it recently filed in Commonwealth Court.
It asserts that the current system leaves defendants without effective counsel and, according to an ACLU news release, “creates an inconsistent patchwor.
