unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,419
Errrr WTF.
Whats the point of a public defender if you have to pay for him.
How about we charge the DA, the cops, the forensic labs for the millions in wasted tax payer funds.
https://reason.com/2024/10/25/iowa-...ted-defendants-for-court-appointed-attorneys/
The Iowa Supreme Court is being asked to consider, again, if state courts can bill poor defendants for their court-appointed lawyers, even when they're acquitted or the charges against them are dropped.
If the court takes up the case, State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai, it will be the second time in recent years that Iowa's highest court has ruled on the state's unusually aggressive practice of billing poor defendants for court-appointed attorneys.
Several civil liberties groups—the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and Public Justice—filed an amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state's fee scheme is unconstitutionally vague and violates the presumption of innocence by levying sanctions against nonconvicted defendants.
"Courts cannot uphold a fair justice system if they are funding it on the backs of the most vulnerable people that come before them," Lisa Foster, co-executive director of the FFJC, said in a press release. "To further extend this miscarriage of justice by enforcing it even when the case is dismissed sends a clear message that puts profit over people."
Whats the point of a public defender if you have to pay for him.
How about we charge the DA, the cops, the forensic labs for the millions in wasted tax payer funds.
https://reason.com/2024/10/25/iowa-...ted-defendants-for-court-appointed-attorneys/
The Iowa Supreme Court is being asked to consider, again, if state courts can bill poor defendants for their court-appointed lawyers, even when they're acquitted or the charges against them are dropped.
If the court takes up the case, State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai, it will be the second time in recent years that Iowa's highest court has ruled on the state's unusually aggressive practice of billing poor defendants for court-appointed attorneys.
Several civil liberties groups—the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and Public Justice—filed an amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state's fee scheme is unconstitutionally vague and violates the presumption of innocence by levying sanctions against nonconvicted defendants.
"Courts cannot uphold a fair justice system if they are funding it on the backs of the most vulnerable people that come before them," Lisa Foster, co-executive director of the FFJC, said in a press release. "To further extend this miscarriage of justice by enforcing it even when the case is dismissed sends a clear message that puts profit over people."
Last edited:
