PUBLIC “PRETENDER” OR PUBLIC DEFENDER?  If and when a citizen becomes charged with a crime, how should they view their legal safety and standing when being assigned what is commonly referred to as a “public pretender”?  Oftentimes, public defenders have no private clients for criminal defense because nobody would hire or recommend them for this purpose.  Ethics in Idaho believes the public defender’s own conduct has created the “stereotype”.  Ethics in Idaho asks:  what would it take to cause public defenders to become respected, valued, and referred to as “good attorneys”?  The answer is not as difficult as it may initially seem.

To support Constitutional Trial Rights Ethics in Idaho will actively seek changes in public defender contract rules
to include all Idaho State Bar (ISB) members .  Bar members may decline to be a “provider”,
but would NOT need a special contract or bid to participate. Qualified recipients for services
would choose their attorney from a list of those accepting the funding terms/rates. 
This diversification is proposed to current delivery mechanisms of existing funding. 

Let’s view this situation from two perspectives, the first being as a group of taxpayers funding a vital role with State and Federal monies.  How effective is the money currently being used?  The second being from the position of the client assigned a public defender (the accused).  This impacts every single person’s family or friend in one way or another, and Ethics in Idaho asks – are you properly represented?   Ethics in Idaho believes a client should always be able to choose their own attorney.  The job market and business are influenced by a single performance related idea – competition.  Why not public defenders?  If any one public defender (in this case any private attorney) fails to perform repeatedly and ongoing - the market (the public) would not continue to utilize that provider’s services due to the reputation they create for themselves individually, separate from - “in general”.  This is not any different from individuals choosing their own doctor. 

A secondary problem would be inherently fixed by avoiding one or two public defenders continually or accidentally creating close-knit, routine contact with prosecutors deteriorating an essential element of the legal system – the ability and willingness to refute the other side’s argument and evidence.  That any public defender becomes institutionalized to being just another one of “the (good ol’) boys” - defeats the purpose and wastes tax payer money.  Public defenders play a major role in what is either good or bad with the legal system.  Consumer choice can and will force them to reflect more of the good.

To share information about your experience with a public defender, CONTACT US or email to admin@ethicsinidaho.org. 

Attorneys in support of this plan, EI wants to hear from you as well.

The following letter is submitted in support of Ethics in Idaho Public Defender Program.   Mr. Wilcox is the Valley County Public Defender.  He writes this letter about the false telephone harassment charges that Matthew Williams illegally put forward against Helen Myrick (see Why Helen Myrick Helped Found EI).  Although Mr. Wilcox was willing to admit his conflict-of-interest; when the charge was not dismissed, he refused to withdraw.  Instead, Mr. Wilcox began harassing his own client (for his good friend Mr. Williams) by filing papers indicating Ms. Myrick was not competent to stand trial and could not even understand the charges against her.  Mr. Wilcox further attempted to have Ms. Myrick held in contempt for failing to appear at that hearing, which he was allowed (or encouraged) by Judge Boomer to place on the court calendar the very day it was held.