Skip to main content

The Criminal Justice Act Turns 50

Last Wednesday marked the 50th anniversary of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), which was signed into law by President Johnson on August 20, 2013. The CJA (codified at 18 U.S.C. §3006A) mandates funding for court-appointed counsel to represent indigent defendants charged with felonies or Class A misdemeanors in federal court. Although the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to counsel for the accused, it is silent as to whether the court must provide an attorney for a defendant who cannot afford one. It wasn’t until Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), that the Supreme Court established the right to court-appointed counsel in all federal criminal cases.

Even after Johnson, however, no funding was provided for court-appointed lawyers. This often made it impossible for them to hire experts or investigators and to provide an adequate defense. The CJA mandated that court-appointed lawyers receive hourly fees and expenses. Six years later, an amendment to the Act provided for the hiring of full-time government defense lawyers. Today, the federal Defender Services program serves 91 of the 94 federal judicial districts.

Although providing court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants may seem like an unqualified good, the system has its drawbacks. Funding remains a problem. During the 2013 sequestration, for example, federal defenders’ budgets were cut drastically. Furthermore, the severity of mandatory-minimum sentencing means that prosecutors have enormous power to force defendants into plea bargains. This situation has led some to argue that indigent federal defendants are worse off now than they were before the passage of the CJA. For an example of such an argument, see this 2013 article from the Yale Law Journal. For more on the history of the CJA, see this article on the United States Courts website. 


Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …