Janet Erly’s constitutional rights have been violated. Since she is indigent, she receives a subpar defender who does not spend more than 3 hours on a case. Erly should be given a retrial, where a fair trial will ensue. For years, the public defender's office has only been given half of what the district attorney has been funded. Therefore, the public defender's office has been given inadequate funding to the effect that Janet Erly could have been given a proper attorney. Janet was wrongfully charged when the court convicted her of an armed robbery. If Janet Erly had been given a competent attorney from the public defender's office, or if she was able to afford her own, the case outcome would have been much different. Erly’s sixth amendment rights were violated …show more content…
Times, there have been reported cases of overworked public attorneys falling asleep on the job. The national limit for cases public attorneys can accomplish per year is around ninety to one hundred. However, there have been numerous reports of attorneys taking on up to six hundred to eight hundred cases. In one report done by the L.A Times, public attorneys had 1,600 cases per year. Overworked attorneys are also not given the money or resources to defend their clients. Indigent people usually end up in jail because of the lack of evidence they face. Public defenders are not given the resources to build up evidence protecting their client. Non indigent people are given a much better opportunity to prove their innocence. In a criminal court the more privilege one has the better one’s defense will be. An example of that would be the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. O.J Simpson was accused of murdering, Nicole Brown Simpson, and waiter Ronald Lyle Goldman. After being accused Simpson hired a team of good lawyers who proved his innocence. If the table was turned and an indigent person was put in his place ,the outcome of that case would be the complete