I was appointed a court-appointed private attorney—not a public defender—and my experience was disappointing to say the least, but I didn’t know better. 

A public defender is a salaried government employee whose sole job is to represent indigent clients. “Court-appointed counsel” refers to private attorneys who take on state cases for an hourly fee. Public defenders are like tigers in the wild: a dying, scarce breed. There is something called the “indigent defense crisis” going on in this country. Overburdened and understaffed public defender offices are at capacity. Jane is working her hardest; Stephen can only handle so much. These offices should be more funded, so they can staff more. 

The “indigent defense crisis” is not a recent development but a systemic failure for decades. The Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that states have a constitutional obligation to ensure “the poor” are provided effective counsel, if it’s proven they cannot afford to retain their own counsel. What society, schools, and the courts do not inform you however is that you can always proceed pro se. You are not legally required to have an attorney for any criminal case in the United States: Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the constitutional right to represent themselves if they choose to waive their right to counsel. While the court may appoint “standby counsel” in complex or high-stakes trials to ensure the proceedings aren’t derailed, the ultimate decision to control your own defense and refuse the court’s “assistance.” “I’m good G.”

Back to court-appointed representation: their fees get charged to the state, then, after the case is over, the state comes after you. You can run, but you cannot hide.   States like Missouri, Louisiana, and Oregon have gained notoriety for particularly strained : underfunding, lack of independent state-level oversight, and reliance on fragmented, low-bid contract systems that prioritize speed and cost-cutting over effective legal defense. 

Conversely, a growing number of states have recognized that charging for a constitutional right is inherently contradictory. This is nuanced, so let me explain. New Jersey, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware are among those that have taken legislative action to abolish public defender fees. In these jurisdictions, the state has moved toward fully funding defense services, eliminating the “restitution” bill that follows a case’s conclusion. One could argue that while the right to counsel is constitutional, the current system of state-funded, low-bid contract attorneys who don’t fight for you fully often fails to uphold the actual integrity of that right. That’s where the nuance of the argument exists. At the end of the day, you can always proceed pro se. Do you think the right to counsel includes the state funding that right? I think it’s a good argument considering an indigent must prove their indigency. You cannot be employed with monies and claim this. 

There is also the inherent conflict of interest: when a lawyer is paid by the state to represent someone against the state, their financial incentives are often misaligned with their client’s needs. Yes, you are their client, but the state is paying them, and so they aren’t really there for you, tooth-and-nail, 100%. A private court-appointed attorney is being paid a low hourly rate by the court. They have the financial incentive to settle cases quickly. 

Oh, I forgot to tell you what I was arrested for. Possession of marijuana in Iowa, and alleged Operating While Under the Influence of Marijuana. The latter is contentious, considering marijuana metabolites stay in one’s system for at least a few days to weeks. Looking back, I wish I went to trial, with or without counsel. Had I testified, it is possible the “reasonable doubt standard” would not have been met. Whether found guilty or not guilty, I would have at least saved myself thousands of dollars for attorney fees that never actually helped my case. 

From the get-go, my attorney just wanted me to accept the plea deal. No questions about my case, or the merits of trial. Just a superficial review and recommendation to accept. Mind you, it takes two to tango. I should have defended myself and thought, “Fuck this I’m going to trial.” I just wasn’t aware, which is why I am writing this today, for anyone in the future. 

If your case is nuanced, go to trial. Do not accept the plea deal which will lock you in forever. Once it is signed, there is no “Oops, I change my mind.” At least with trial you can try your best to present evidence and testimony. You shouldn’t be penalized for exercising your right to a trial. In an ideal system, a trial is the best way to ensure your case is comprehensively analyzed. They often use “maximum penalty” threats to pressure defendants into plea deals. If your case has no nuance, and it’s clear as day what happened, then yea the court isn’t going to be happy, and you might even get a “trial penalty,” aka the risk of receiving a harsher sentence after trial than the original plea offer. If you have mitigating factors, which you can argue during trial, you won’t get the max penalty. 

The fine print at the bottom of the financial affidavit form I signed had a clause stating I may be required to repay the state. I admit that. But, the gravity of that statement was never emphasized, and it was presented as a possibility, not as the certainty it was. Had I been told directly, “You are declaring you cannot afford an attorney, but if we appoint one for you, you will be personally billed for their time,” it would have clicked and I would have escaped that rabbit hole. 

Appointed counsel is a system that often fails to provide the level of defense you need. Every case and person is unique, so I can’t always recommend going pro se. If it’s a disorderly, or a lower misdemeanor, you might very well just be best off representing yourself, going for trial, honestly testifying, and accepting whatever outcome and sentencing. You’ll save all that money, and give yourself the best chance to prove whatever you can, which doesn’t even get considered in the plea-bargain phase. 

Of course, if you have poor reading and writing skills, you might not fare well going pro se. But I believe that most people, regardless of their formal education, are capable of presenting the facts and nuances of their own case. 

That’s my opinion at least.