Michigan Faces Constitutional Case Over Cash-Strapped Public Defenders

Tresa Baldas

The National Law Journal

December 24, 2009

Are Michigan's public defenders improperly pushing the poor into copping pleas? The Michigan Supreme Court will consider that question this spring when it hears a case challenging how publicly appointed lawyers represent poor criminal defendants.

At issue is whether cash-strapped public defenders are violating the constitutional rights of defendants by allegedly too eagerly encouraging plea bargains, as opposed to vigorously fighting the charges. Indigent defendants in three Michigan counties -- Muskegon, Berrien and Genesee -- are suing the state over what they claim is an underfunded and inadequate public defender system.

The lawsuit, filed in 2007, got a boost in June when a Michigan appeals court ordered the case to proceed to trial. On Dec. 18, the state Supreme Court agreed to review that decision.

The plaintiffs contend that the public defender systems in their counties are so bad that poor people are pleading guilty because, for all practical purposes, they are given no other choice. The plaintiffs are represented by a team of private lawyers and advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Brennan Center.

"The systems in those counties are designed to encourage people to plead guilty," said Frank Eaman, a solo criminal defense attorney in Detroit, who is helping represent the plaintiffs. According to Eaman, a team of investigators discovered numerous flaws: Public defenders would often meet their clients for the first time in court; investigations were rarely done; and witnesses were not interviewed.

"The Constitution requires a more rigorous defense," Eaman said.