Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Boise Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

 In private practice, criminal defense lawyers are frequently asked about public defenders.  The opinions of the folks asking about their appointed lawyers often takes on a familiar sound: 

"Should I keep this guy?"  

"He / she hasn't even been out to see me!"  

"I want a real lawyer!"  

The truth is that public defender IS a REAL lawyer and he or she may be the best thing going for you and your case. 

By way of full disclosure, I served as a public defender in the ARMY - as part of the JAG Corps. I learned to try cases from three senior "PDs" (we were called Trial Defense Counsel in the Army) who I would still rate in the top ten trial lawyers I have ever seen over my thirty year career.  We were proud to serve as defense counsel and we never worried about how many hours were spent preparing for trial because we did not have to bill or collect from our clients.  Uncle Sam paid us the same amount each month whether we spent forty or eighty hours a week working on our cases.  

Here are three reasons you may want to stay with the public defender (and as I write this I realize this is "negative marketing" - as I am suggesting you may be better off not paying for your lawyer):

Reason 1 - your case may be more complex than your wallet's ability to pay for counsel. Many criminal cases are incredibly complex, requiring analysis of many legal issues and factual considerations. I am in a case currently that involves over 100,000 pages of documents, each of which must be reviewed and analyzed.  Reviewing documents takes time.  Time is what we sell as private counsel - so you could expect that the more time we spend, the more the case costs.  But a public defender in a complex case may be able to commit the same amount of time and resources to your complex case and not worry about collecting for his or her fees.  If you are in a complex case, you need to ask your PD if they have the time to devote to your defense.

Reason 2 - that PD may have a better grasp of the law of your case and the local procedures than an inexperienced private counsel.  When I first started practicing in Boise, I was hired to "birddog" a criminal case for a family with unlimited funds, who had been the victim of the crime at issue. I went to the Preliminary Hearing and when the Defendant waived, I wasn't sure exactly what would happen.  I had trial experience - couple murder cases included - but that experience was not "local." Another lawyer explained the result of the waiver and I was able to report accurately to my clients that the Defendant was headed toward arraignment. That Defendant had a public defender who breezed his way through the process because he had an intimate knowledge of the process - he was in court every day and understood exactly what was coming next.

My point here is that the PD CAN really serve a client's best interests, in part because they have day in and day out experience in the courts.

Reason 3 - PDs are REAL LAWYERS!  I used to really hate to hear this crap. Even in the military, a defendant can hire "private counsel" to handle a courts-martial.  When I had this happen I usually felt relief and regret about the situation. Often I was happy to have another lawyer to come into the case and bring his or her experience to the defense of my client. Relief.  The regret came with my own sense of pride in the job I could have done - after all - I was a REAL lawyer too!  Still, in the end the decision needs to be made by the person facing the charges. 

I want to add that the local PDs I interact with are generally GREAT lawyers.  It's true!  They work hard, care about their cases and genuinely operate in the best interests of their clients.  

So if you are happy with your Public Defender - you may be best to stay the course. If you want another opinion about your case, check with a private criminal defense lawyer, whether that is me or someone else.  But in the end - understand that your right to have the effective assistance of a lawyer who is paid for at public expense is one of the most important protections available to any defendant in any court in this land.  

Thanks for your service PDs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I frequently check out Lawrence Taylor's DUI blog for info on trends and tips on trying these tough, tough cases.  Check out his recent post that examines where we are headed with respect to drinking and driving: are we likely to take the "legal limit" even lower. Currently the magic number is .08% - but will that number go even lower? The law is intended to reduce the number of intoxicated drivers on the road. Lowering the blood alcohol level even lower serves only to trap drivers who may well not be intoxicated at all. Check out Taylor's post as he discusses this.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The other shoe has fallen.  John Bujak, formerly the Canyon County Prosecutor, has been charged with Grand Theft by Deception and by Embezzlement, and the investigation of the case is set out in a detailed affidavit that is available online at the Idaho Press Tribune website, or here.  But before you think this thing is over, I bet there are more falling shoes in our future.  Here's why:

First, the affidavit indicates that although Bujak maintained neither he nor his chief of staff Tim Fleming would profit from the contract between Canyon County and Nampa City, BOTH did profit and neither apparently thinks there was any problem with their conduct. Bujak told the investigators that the issue wasn't whether he took the money, but rather, whether he was permitted to take the money. Apparently in his mind, those statements that he would not personally profit (the Canyon County Commissioners say that they were led to believe Bujak would not profit) were only intended to refer to his agreement to "not take a salary increase."  So the investigation reveals that as the money came in from the City, which believed it was going to pay the County, Bujak used the money for his personal expenses, transferring money to his own private accounts.  It also shows that in late March 2010, Bujak used the same money to buy a $10,000 cashiers check for Tim Flemming - Bujak's former chief of staff. Why was the $10,000 cashiers check, purchased out of Nampa City funds that were intended for Canyon County, going to Tim Fleming? Gift? Bonus? Mr. Fleming may have some explaining to do.

Second, the affidavit indicates that the contract (Prosecution Services Agreement) was between the City of Nampa and Office of the Mayor, and the Canyon County Prosecutor and Canyon County. Bujak's claim has been that it was a personal contract between he and the City. If the contract actually is not in his name, then the money is likely not his; it belonged to the County. All of this stuff will impact on the pending lawsuits and bankruptcy proceeding. That failure to disclose to the Bankruptcy Court that he had possessed and sold a Rolex watch, could still land Bujak in another criminal case - in federal court. And of course there is the divorce proceeding and Bujak's lawsuit against protagonists Bob Henry and the Michaelson law firm - remember he said they defamed him when they claimed that he had received money that he wasn't entitled to?  Kind of sounds like the charges of Grand Theft in the new criminal case, doesn't it?

Third and foremost in my mind is the likely involvement of the Idaho State Bar.  Bujak has been practicing law on a contract basis while this has been pending. He serves as an officer of the court and his conduct is subject to review by the Bar. 

Then again - I guess that potential fourteen years for each GRAND THEFT count will probably consume his time.  After all - he took the money - admits he got $236,000 from the City of Nampa that they believed was going to the Canyon County Prosecutor's Office. The only question is whether he was ENTITLED to take it.

I bet Kerry Michaelson and Bob Henry will sleep a lot easier tonight. They called it years ago.

And Mayor Dale, City of Nampa, Canyon County Commissioners: who was driving that bus when each of you allowed this mess to go on for a year? Just how is it that Canyon County taxpayers got Bujaked on your watch? You've got some explaining to do, too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link