We've got a case where a defense lawyer was paid several thousand dollars to represent a jailed defendant charged with murder. The crook is still in jail and the lawyer has filed motions for the appointment of a private investigator and a shrink. Insanity is going to be an issue in the case. The lawyer claims that he learned of a case at the Advanced Crim Law Course which covered the appointment of experts even though the crook has a hired lawyer. I can see where this procedure could break the county if it becomes a routine procedure. It just seems too easy for a defense lawyer to take all of the money and then come in asking for the county to pick up the costs of experts and investigators... but then again bondsmen do it all of the time. Anyone have any ideas on how to approach this?

I would ask for the case site before I took the defense attorney's word for it.

He only cites Ake in his motions but that's not new law. We'll see...

The case is Ex parte Briggs. In that case, the CCA recently held a retained defense attorney was ineffective for failing to let a defendant plead guilty to injury to a child without conducting a proper investigation into whether the defendant was responsible for the injury (complicated child death).

The CCA indicated that the defendant seemed to have been pushed to plead because of an inability to pay for a medical expert. The defense attorney didn't offer the defendant the option of seeking a free expert through court appointment, if she could prove she was indigent.

Several speakers, including myself, covered the case at the Advanced Criminal Law Conference. It was a very significant case, but it was not a free ride for all defendants regading expert assistance.

The CCA also indicated the lawyer could have simply subpoenaed the state's medical experts and used them. Or, the lawyer could have sought to withdraw from the case (presumably returning the 5 grand fee, which he thought was too little for a trial) and obtained a court-appointed lawyer and expert.

Ex parte Briggs does not say that every defendant has a right to a free expert. Nothing has changed from Ake on that issue. And, in Briggs, there was a clear need for a 2nd medical opinion. I recommend everyone read the case carefully to avoid judges thinking they need to break the county bank on every case.

Finally, the case does not say a defendant can't plead guilty without having first employed a medical expert. The focus was on the defendant's decision to plead for financial reasons. A defendant could simply decide he/she is guilty and waive the investigative opportunity -- just not for finanical reasons.

Ake deals with indigence, not with whether the accused has requested appointed counsel. As you say, the accused routinely says "I spent my last dime on my bail bond, so where's my free lawyer." I think that the Supreme Court is out to bankrupt local government in favor of "fairer" trials. Briggs will make defense counsel bolder, but probably merely mentions what has been the law for some time.

If an indigent defendant is able to hire an attorney, through various ways (sometimes giving title to cars, boats, family members pay the bill, etc...) then that is one less bill that the county has to pay. Seems right.