I note that Professor Guggenheim’s hypotheses, as articulated today and in his written paper, I indicate that the judge and the prosecutor exert their so-called forbidden pressure upon defense counsel. But I also note that his criticism of the prosecutor and the judge for exert-ing this pressure is non-existent. He appears to lay the burden of overcoming the resulting violations of the constitution and of ethics solely upon defense counsel, rather than upon a common understanding by all members of the process that the dilution of the rights of an individual defendant is absolutely inappropriate and unconstitutional.
Professor Guggenheim first assumes that institutional defenders will trade off the interests and rights of one client in favor of another, in the face of actual or perceived pressure by judges and prosecutors-pressure made possible by the institutional lawyer’s regular and repeated appearances in court.These charges against defense counsel and the institutional defender are serious ones, but they are misconceived, and I’m glad that I have the opportunity to correct this misconception.
Molly Lauterback This is the fourth in a series of interviews with attorneys who are pursuing social change through their work. This conversation took place between Molly Lauterback, an editor and board member of the N.Y.U. Review of Law &
Discusses the history and background of public defense and the strategies used in advancing it's goals then presents alternative strategies.
Zealous advocacy is not enough to combat the effects after a criminal sentence is served, and a holistic approach is necessary
Looks at public defense leadership in three dimensions from very specific and local to broad and global.