The Developing Crisis in Providing Representation to Indigent Criminal Defendants
Before examining the modem development of New York City’s indigent defense system subsequent to the adoption of Article 18-B, we will trace the nationwide tension between the adversarial rhetoric of Gideon v. Wainwright and the cost-effective practices of indigent defense providers. Next, we will examine the responses made by defender agencies and the organized bar to increased case pressure following the Supreme Court’s decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin. We explain how institutional defenders, despite continued reliance on assembly-line practices, “shed” substantial numbers of cases to assigned counsel and private contract defenders. We then will describe the organized bar’s efforts to legitimate indigent defense systems by promulgating professional standards which invest institutional defenders and assigned counsel with an acceptable adversarial veneer.
The Structure and Operation of the 18-B Panel and the Legal Aid Society
Introduces the structure and operation of the 18-B Panel and Legal Aid Society.
The 18-B Panel's Operational Structure, Demographic Characteristics, and Work and Income Patterns
Discusses rotational assignments structure, demographics of Panel, as well as the effect of the rotations on the activity level of Panel attorneys.
Caseload Division Between the 18-B Panel and the Legal Aid Society
Outlines criteria and difficulties in obtaining data about respective caseloads of 18-B Panel and Legal Aid Society attorneys.
The Lawyering Practices of 18-B Panel Attorneys
Examines the lawyering practices of 18-B Panel attorneys and the extent to which they effectively advocate for their clients.