The charges in this trial, were substantial, but what we will focus on is the two most serious charges, Manslaughter and Tampering With Evidence. The charged, was a Sweet Home man, Bobby Ray Hancock, and the charges came out of the wreckage of a motorcycle crash, that took Victoria Richards' life.
This part, her death, is a tragic reminder of drunk driving and its consequences. Alcohol and poor decisions took a beautiful life, and if this fact resonates within the public domain, maybe the people and the state can reverse future negative outcomes of consuming alcohol. The state, as well as the public, should consider whether or not, the victim's family is owed. Maybe not monetarily, but socially and educationally. Victoria Richards' life will be missed, and her story needs to be told. I believe that creating a trust fund for her kids, is the right thing for the state to do. I also believe that the state should educate, through its schools and curriculum, about the aftermath of drunk-driving.
The state charged Hancock with her death, and the next two years consisted of investigation and legal hop-scotch, finally coming to trial in August of 2013. The week long trial pitted the Linn County District Attorney's Office and Michael Wynhausen, against Eugene attorney Michael Arnold. The stakes were high, as the two most serious charges carried lengthy prison sentences.
Hancock is fortunate, to afford a very capable attorney(Arnold), in addition to expert accident reconstructionists and medical consultants. The defendant also posted bail, twice.
The fact that Hancock had access to such a high quality defense, is not his fault, and should not be judged on that aspect. But my opinion, after seeing the trial, is that Hancock's chances, his odds, were significantly improved the moment he hired Michael Arnold.
An expert witness for the defense, shows the jury how the motorcycle moves during turmoil, as the prosecution and judge look on.
And it is not because Arnold is a very good lawyer(he is), it is because with a public defender, the quality of defense varies enormously. A local lawyer, who is both a private and public defender, said: "A retainer will get you a face-to-face, but there is no difference in ethics or effort, from attorney to attorney in regard to public defenders." But that statement is more a compliment to some good attorneys in the Albany area. The fact is, this "face-to-face" implication is simply that if there is money in it, there is incentive.
Michael Arnold and the Hancock trial, does show that some lawyers are just better, just as local reputation says that the office of Paul Kuebrich and Forrest Reid, is the best. People know this, and as a very good essay(Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law) about money defenders, states emphatically, "Marginally indigent defendants are most likely to spend resources for private lawyers, if the charge is serious." But, if you cannot afford Kuebrich, who is significantly more affordable than Arnold, then your quality of defense, possibly decreases.
Sure, good public defenders exist, and some, like Tim Feling of Albany, are exceptional. But even Feling says, "We spend a lot of money, as a country, locking up criminals, but we spend very little on intervention." Which is an implication of a system in need of improvement.
Maybe we should consider two things. One, addressing the idea of 'money buys a face-to-face ' and its inherent discriminations, while focusing on better quality of defense across the public defender board; Two, vocalizing complaints through our politicians, to change the state's approach to arbitrary punishment.
There are some that say the system is overworked and underpaid, and with an aggressive state that demands minimum sentences for minor crime, the burden on the players involved is proving to be costly. America would be better served to solve the issues of system injustice, and then tackle the public defender bias within the arenas and lawyers it exists.
A municipal court public defender prepares for an appearance.
"The world would be a better place without Measure 11," said Kuebrich. Others have said that Measure 11, the Oregon Statute that demands minimum sentences, is actually "Blackmail 11," implying that the measure handcuffs prosecutors and judges. But in contrast, Linn District Attorney Jonathan Crow said, "Measure 11 does do things it was designed for, by locking up problem criminals," and Crow pointed to a Willamette Week article, saying that the "liberal" publication had also stated the merits of the measure. Which brings the question, if a public defender is not either capable or willing, how would Bobby Ray Hancock have fared, had he been represented by a public defender?
Hancock, remember, had two extremely serious charges, and if we speculate as to the outcome of a public defender trial, what can be said of the "expert" witnesses? The defense experts contradicted the state's witness, Albany Police Sargent Jerry Drum, by examining the physics of the accident. Without the expert analysis, Hancock would have had a very hard case to prove, considering the state's evidence and stature. The state called witness after witness, and had a seasoned Albany policeman as the primary witness. Hancock may have had very little, without the defense expert witnesses and their testimony, let alone their investigations.
The state buys a prosecution, and along with that, has a traffic jam of witnesses, paid for by the taxpayers of Oregon.
The state, and Drum, contended that Hancock was driving when the accident happened, and that the victim had flown off the rear of the bike. The defense presented expert witness David Karlin, a certified scientist in the field of accident reconstruction. Karlin testified to the science of the accident, and countered Drum's assertion that Hancock was driving. Karlin testified extensively about evidence and physics, and on cross examination by Wynhausen, told of his costs. Those costs, for this case, are in the six-figure range.
Even a good public defender, like Tim Feling or Paul Kuebrich, cannot present this sort of expert testimony. So, as we see, money does buy a better defense. But what about minorish crime? Crime that potentially involves jail, and may be arbitrary? The Willamette Week article(prior link) addresses prisons in regard to Measure 11, but does not address arbitrary courts that are simply "moneymakers."
Municipal courts are known to be biased, and have a reputation as a revenue outlet for the municipality. Albany attorney Janet Boytano said, "Municipal courts are money courts." Even in a county court(state court), arbitrary state tactics leave some defendants with charges that a public defender who is assertive, can combat the state's tendency to punish minor offenses with harsh demands.
According to the advocacy website, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, public defender caseloads are excessive in some jurisdictions, and exceed legal standards. A New York Times article exposed caseloads of 1000, well beyond accepted norms.
The same website, NLADA states five concerns with defendant rights on its homepage. Among these concerns, "in some jurisdictions, adhering to civil rights and right to counsel," and lack of consistent representation.
A local defendant told me, "My public defender attorney wouldn't even return my call." And this sort of disregard is common, if not prevalent, in the industry. Maybe an examination of municipal courts, and state courts, is in order. And maybe examining America's tendency to act like world police, even at home, would be beneficial to everyone involved.
Half-an-hour late in a local municipal court, inefficient for all involved, and far too common.
So, we have heard a lot about money in legal defense, and most of this is common sense. Money talks, so to speak. But when discussing the area of small-time public defense, acknowledging stark contrast from one attorney to the next, is the start of a solution.
The people's goal, and mine, is a system where bias is not present, where public defenders work as hard as Paul Kuebrich works, and where the ones who do not provide the defendant with the best possible defense, are held accountable.
The people have rights, and we should remember that exclusively.
No comments:
Post a Comment