tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post112425586738645807..comments2023-10-20T05:03:10.942-04:00Comments on Indefensible: Another Cop Out (Cut)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post-1124299269219991322005-08-17T13:21:00.000-04:002005-08-17T13:21:00.000-04:00Hey Tom,Interestingly, in England, that's exactly ...Hey Tom,<BR/>Interestingly, in England, that's exactly how it is (though it is changing). There, if you were charged with a crime and were indigent, the government would pay for any lawyer who'd agree to take your case. That is to say, if you could get some partner at Fried, Frank to do the case, the government would foot the bill.<BR/><BR/>May not be an EP issue, but certainly a superior assignment system.Indefensiblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06060635220496355426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post-1124298953468038712005-08-17T13:15:00.000-04:002005-08-17T13:15:00.000-04:00Nor could they because the logic of such a positio...Nor could they because the logic of such a position reduces to a requirement that the state give you the most expensive lawyer in town. If they don't, and you could have hired the more expensive (and better?) lawyer <I>but for</I> your poverty, you'd be able to assert an EP violation. <BR/><BR/>Clearly the SCOTUS could not take us down that road. After all, the "right" to <B><I>appointed</B></I> counsel (as opposed to the right actually acknowledged in the constitution: to <B><I>have</B></I> counsel) is constitutionally extra-textual to begin with, so expansion of it is naturally disfavored.Tom McKennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10826579789878573864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post-1124289175658894712005-08-17T10:32:00.000-04:002005-08-17T10:32:00.000-04:00Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not recogniz...Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not recognize this ep violation based on indigency...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com