What Are The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

“Due to the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), each State in the United States must have a way to offer representation to indigent defendants or defendants who cannot afford one for themselves”(“Private Lawyer,” 2015). You have three options for representation in court. You have self-representation, public defender and private attorney. Self-representation should be your last option because most individuals are not familiar with the law. The only people that self-represent their self is lawyers, judges, prosecutors. The reason being is that cases have complexities that lawyers have high specialized training to understand. Having a lawyer by your side is the best case scenario for nearly

If the individual is financially stable having an attorney is a pro, whereas, if the individual is not financially stable being assigned a public defender is a con. The first step to being appointed a public defender is convincing the judge you do not have enough funds to hire an attorney. Following this step, in most instances judges may require you to complete forms stating your financial resources, incomes, and debt. An excellent attorney will cost you money whereas the public defender is provided at no cost. Another con for a public defender is they cannot represent an individual if they commit a civil crime. This is a con because if an individual is not finically equip self-representation would be there only option. This is not to say that a public defender is a bad attorney. A pro for having a public defender is individuals with low income will have a government representative defending them in

As result of this caseload, public defenders are seriously overworked and underpaid compared to private attorneys. With an attorney they do not have as many caseloads as a public defender so they are able to focus more on your case. When hiring an attorney you also get to interview and select the attorney you decide to work with. When being assigned a public defender you may not meet your public defender until the day of your trial. “Generally this is not enough time to get a very good sense of who their client is, thus, potentially preventing the lawyer from obtaining information that may be very important in formulating a defense. This could also lead to the public defender missing small but crucial details about a case that a more thorough investigation would reveal.”() However one of the greatest benefits an attorney has over a public defender is specialization. An attorney is a highly specialized lawyer that is familiar with the new laws and the science used to defend your case in court. The private attorney devotes entire practice to defend your charges. Your private attorney usually will not let you plead guilty, rely on business referrals and they are more motivated to get the best results possible. The public defender rely on the court system resources to create your defense, they are not getting extra funding to explore every