Representation
a problem
for indigent
defendants
Alternative systems of legal representation for
indigent people in Lane County were the subject of
public testimony, question and comment at a
meeting held Monday night in the County Annex
building.
The meeting, heavily attended by lawyers and
officials of the local judicial system, was called by
the Ad Hoc Public Defender Citizen’s Advisory
Committee. The group was set up at the request of
the county commissioners to study the feasibility of
setting up a public defender system in the county,
and to report to the commissioners by the end of
July.
Court-appointed attorneys currently represent
Lane County citizens who lack the means to pay for
their own legal expenses. The public defender
system, which has been instituted in many com
munities since its first emergence as an innovation
in Los Angeles, would create a full-time salaried
office to represent the indigent.
Though agencies of the local judicial system
were amply represented at the meeting, most
declined to take a strong stand either pro or con cm
the public defender issue. A spokesman for the
district attorney’s office said the prosecuting
agency had not committed itself either for or
against the establishment of a public defender’s
office, and would not do so until more information is
in. However, he favored maintaining the current
system unless it could be shown that the innovation
would be superior in terms of quality of defense for
the indigent or in terms of the cost factor. A
representative from Legal Aid did not speak in
advocacy of either the present system or a new one.
Strongly-stated opinion that pulled no punches
about the workings of the U.S. judicial system was
offered by University student Gordon Little. Little,
who is studying community service public affairs
through a Newgate release program, spoke from
personal experience of how the judicial system
functions, and offered a glimpse into how those
behind bars view the process.
He characterized both the court-appointed
attorney and the public defender system as they
currently function in various communities as
games — ones titled “Let’s make a deal...let’s cop
out,” referring to out-of-court bargaining with
judges and DAs. “A man in prison looking at the
American justice system,” he said, “knows it’s kind
of like buying meat in a butcher shop...How much
can you pay for?” Because of this behind-the-scene
dealing and because public defenders’ resources
are inadequate to the needs, even these “in
novative” defenders of the poor have become a joke
among prisoners, he said.
Outstanding lawyers, he said, are seldom ap
pointed and seldom accept indigent cases. Those
attorneys who do take the cases are paid $25 to $100
when they would receive $1000 or so if it were a
private case. This, in Mr. Little’s view, is tokenism,
an imposition on the lawyer and seldom generates
vigorous defense for the poor.
Little urged strongly that whatever system
Lane County chooses, be it court-appointed attorney
or public defender, the program should be
adequately funded, adequately staffed and struc
tured with a strong governing body and definite
guidelines.
Police investigative resources ought to be
available to each individual just as they are to the
prosecuting agencies of the state, he also suggested.
Another step toward a truly just system which Little
recommended would be to require each new at
torney to spend six months in jail, so that he or she
would know what 10 years of imprisonment is when
handing down sentences.
Speaking in favor of retaining the current
system of court-appointed lawyers was a
representative of a local law firm retained by the
city of Eugene to defend indigents. At the district
and circuit court level, he maintained a public
defender’s office would give way to a factory at
mosphere — to specialization among the lawyers, to
mass production and to impersonality.
He observed that a district attorney’s proximity
to the power structure impedes his or her ability to
seek justice. The same, he feared, would occur with
a public defender.
Court-appointed attorneys, it was pointed out,
are subject to the same pressures. Since they are
seldom the most influential lawyers, these at
torneys appointed for the poor aren’t in positions to
“squawk, scream, or open any doors” for their
indigent clients, it was said.
(Continued on Page 4)
DA supports bill lowering penalty
for state’s casual marijuana users
A bill which would remove
criminal penalties for possession
of small amounts of marijuana
received “wholehearted sup
port” Tuesday from Lane County
District Attorney Pat Horton.
Horton also indicated full
support for the U.S. Supreme
Court’s recent obscenity
decision, citing the establishment
of local community standards as
the basis for pornography
legislation as a “milestone in
Constitutional interpretation.”
The marijuana proposal — HB
2936 — makes possession of less
than one ounce of marijuana a
violation punishable by a
maximum $100 fine.
“This bill codifies the law
enforcement priorities we sought
to achieve with our citation
program here in Lane County,”
Horton stated. “This legislation
is of landmark proportions. It
would once again give Oregon a
leadership position in
establishing a progressive trend
for the rest of the nation to
follow.”
Horton said the proposed law is
a compromise in that it
“recognizes the realities of
today’s world while not fully
condoning marijuana usage. If
nothing else, that should make it
palatable to all parties.”
He said that most marijuana
laws take a “head-in-the-sand
approach.”
“We should face the fact that
marijuana users are no longer
the black leather jacket crowd.
They are your neighbors and
mine, and our neighbors kids. A
recent study in the Eugene
Springfield area indicated that 46
percent of our high schoolers use
marijuana on a more or less
regular basis. The figures are
undoubtedly higher for college
and young working persons.
These people are not criminals as
such, and should not be treated
that way. In many cases they lose
respect for other laws because
they know first-hand that this one
is unfair.”
Horton said one of the reasons
he proposed and helped establish
the program of issuing citations
to marijuana users in many Lane
County cases, was because it
would free law enforcement
officers to pursue more serious
crimes. He said he felt that the
proposed legislation would have a
similar effect. “We should devote
our time and resources to ap
prehending and convicting
burglars, rapists, murderers,
hard drug pushers, and the like,”
Horton stated, “not incidental
and casual users of marijuana.”
The obscenity decision was also
fully supported by the DA.
“The idea that each com
munity has the right to determine
what is acceptable and what is
not in its own area is a vitally
important concept,” Horton said.
“What the norm is in South Side
Chicago, New York, or Los
Angeles is not necessarily what
we want in Eugene, Oregon.”
Horton said he did not buy the
idea that certain pornography
legislation would trample on
individual rights. “I am a firm
believer in individual choice and
certainly do not support
legislating morals,” he said.
“But, on the other hand, it is not
fair for organized criminals and
other professional types to take
advantage of our basic
humanitarian attitudes by
charging exorbitant prices for
titillating activities and
materials that are an affront to
normal community standards,
and then using the huge profits
from this lucrative trade to
support other illicit activities.”
He also said he felt the court’s
action echoed the position he took
in proposing the recently passed
county ordinance outlawing
“body shops” and “massage
parlors” in Lane County. “I said
at the time that this law was a
proper and constitutional
exercise of our local prerogatives
in this area. The Supreme Court
decision reinforces that deter
mination.”
The DA indicated that there
was apparently widespread
community approval of his ac
tion. “Our mail has been running
20-1 in favor of the ordinance,” he
said “And most of the letters
have been quite com
plimentary.”
Horton said that investigative
reports from the Lane County
Sheriff’s Office indicate that the
one business directly affected by
the ordinance, the “Gentlemen’s
Retreat,” has been closed down
for about three weeks.
Oregon Daily Emerald <=
A MOVIE IN THE TRADITION
OF THE MARX BROS.
I Wed. June 27
7 & 9:15 pm
150 Science I
$1.00
INUC Films9
...the pack for all seasons
11th*. MU