Old news! But changes still to come: Michigan's Indigent Defense Commission: What's happening?

Gov. Snyder (back in 2013, see the article here, which is why I listed this as "old news") signed a bill to allow the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission. The problem is (or was) that depending on where a person got in trouble with the law, the standard of how that person was defended by a court appointed attorney could vary widely.

(A Defendant can always 1. go without representation and act as his or her own attorney 2. hire an attorney, or 3. request that the court appoint an attorney if that defendant can show indigence (poverty).)

The MIDC has so far adopted standards for the attorneys chosen to serve on CA lists, which can be seen here. Other news available on the website.

The more exciting part of this legislation is that it is expected to increase the amount of cases where a defendant is represented. That's good because people are less likely to plead away their rights, if once made aware of those rights!

The US Supreme Court doesn't necessarily care if your lawyer is unethical

A case from Michigan about what effective representation of counsel means was heard at the US Supreme Court. It turns out, if your lawyer does unethical things doesn't mean they were ineffective as your legal representative.

Article here. (State Bar of Michigan blog)

and here.(from the Atlantic)

.... from the Atlantic article :

"This is what the right to counsel has come to in America. Your lawyer may have violated ethical rules; he may have failed to timely consult with other attorneys; he may have not adequately investigated your case; he may have given you bad advice that leads you to withdraw a guilty plea. And yet the legal standards imposed by the Supreme Court declare that you still aren't entitled to any meaningful relief by the courts. In law school, they call this "a right without a remedy." In real life, it's called injustice."