Next Witness...Please

America’s criminal courts are facing a crisis, namely the lack of public defenders and court appointed attorneys to defend people charged with crimes.

Over the past decade, the paucity of defenders for the indigent has grown from an issue lurking just beneath the surface of our judicial system to one of an acute nature. In some states it has grown beyond acute and is, in fact, a critical problem.

To understand the issue, we need to go back to 1963 when the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright decided that indigent defendants, in cases where there is the potential of jail time, had a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to court appointed counsel.

States and local courts then scrambled to create public defenders, paid for by the government, to handle indigent defendants’ cases. When a public defender is not available, the court must appoint a private attorney to represent the poor. Often those attorneys are paid with local funds.

But the demand for public defenders keeps rising and public defenders are leaving their positions, in record numbers, due to burnout, low wages, staggering workloads and crippling student debt.

In a 2016 article, the Guardian indicated that approximately 90 percent of all criminal defendants qualify for a public defender. Hence the workloads for these attorneys are horrendous.

One commentator referred to them as the “pack mules” of the legal system.

Yet in some states, the burden is far too great. For example, in Cole Co., Missouri the caseloads are 225 percent above recommended levels. Rural areas are hit especially hard by this problem.

For example, in Ohio, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, 75 percent of Ohio’s lawyers work in the state’s seven largest counties leaving many of the remaining 81 counties to be without high quality legal services.

More than half of Ohio’s population live in these smaller counties and people and courts are often unable to find an attorney when one is needed.

In Pennsylvania in May 2024, the state had 850 public defenders, according to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school. The need is for 1,200 lawyers leaving a 30 percent shortfall.

The study also showed that 60 of the Commonwealth’s 66 counties had attorney staffing levels below what is required.

Legal scholars have called this dearth of public defenders a “national crisis.”

The Harvard Law Review reported in 2023: “Just over the last decade, the Sixth Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization that evaluates indigent defense systems, has published reports documenting how the constitutional right to counsel in our criminal courts is routinely violated in Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin. During the same period, the American Bar Association has developed evidence-based state-specific workload standards for public defenders in Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Rhode Island…New Mexico and Oregon which, if followed, would require most offices to double in size.”

As a result of the lack of public defenders, indigent clients often languish

in jail longer than their affluent counterparts. Also, they often get scant legal assistance.

On this edition of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Tom Hodson and Gayle William-Byers examine this crisis, its ramifications, and possible solutions.

If you want more information about this topic, please check out the 6th Amendment Center at https://6ac.org/.

What should judges expect from courtroom participants, and what happens if a judge crosses the line?

In this episode of Next Witness...Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson tackle the often-overlooked topic of judicial decorum.

They offer both insight and entertainment, with personal and humorous examples of maintaining—or losing—judicial decorum.

Every court, from state to federal, has codes of conduct requiring judges to be patient, dignified, and respectful in their official roles.

At the same time, judges are tasked with keeping order in their courtroom and sometimes that is not an easy task.

Recently, we’ve seen a range of judicial styles, especially in high-profile cases like those involving Donald Trump from Judge Arthur Engoron and Judge Juan Merchan in New York, Judge Scott McAfee in Georgia to federal judges like Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida and Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C.,

Our retired judges share stories of outlandish courtroom moments, such as a Michigan trial judge's recent outrageous behavior, and discuss techniques they personally used to stay composed.

They also dive into what triggers judges to lose their cool and reveal what really goes on in a judge’s mind while managing a courtroom.

Our judges also dive into how judges can be disciplined for inappropriate conduct in court.

Donald Trump is currently entangled in two major federal criminal cases plus a criminal case in New York and at least two civil cases on appeal.

These cases amount to a mixed bag of legal issues – some complex and some bordering on frivolous but all problematic for judges.

On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson guide listeners through Trump’s legal troubles—not as advocates, but through the lens of judicial analysis.

They discuss the federal classified documents case in Florida and dig deep into the January 6 election interference case before Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C.

They break down the new superseding indictment filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in that case and compare it to the original indictment against Trump.

Our pair of retired judges also simplify the complex issues facing Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s New York criminal case, where 34 guilty verdicts are at stake.

Finally, they tackle two of the appellate cases Trump has filed in the sexual assault and defamation cases involving E. Jean Carroll offering insight into the legal roadblocks ahead.

Delivered in clear, accessible language, they shed light on what’s next for Trump’s legal battles.

New York Judge Juan Merchan is set to rule on pivotal motions from Donald Trump’s legal team, aiming to overturn 34 felony convictions in the hush money and campaign finance cases.

Trump’s attorneys argue that improper evidence was used to secure the guilty verdicts, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

They claim that testimony involving “official acts” from Trump’s presidency tainted the trial and are pushing for both the convictions and original indictments to be dismissed.

Judge Merchan’s decisions are important because they will be the first lower court judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision.

Even though Trump’s criminal activities were clearly not “official acts” of the presidency and, therefore, not immune. Trump’s attorneys claim that improper evidence of “official acts” was used to obtain the verdicts.

The use of evidence of “official acts” cannot be used to buttress alleged violations of “unofficial acts,” according to the Supreme Court.

Trump’s attorneys claim that testimony from witnesses like former presidential advisor Hope Hicks and others so tainted the trial that the verdicts cannot stand.

Judge Merchan is expected to render his decisions by September 16 and Trump currently is scheduled to be sentenced on September 18.

Judges are supposed to be unbiased and objective. So are journalists. Is that possible in 2024? Do our preconceived biases seep into our work?

Is objectivity even possible?

Every judge comes to the bench with his/her own life experiences, biases, and personality, yet the judge is expected to put all of that aside to objectively determine all issues.

The same is true of journalists.

In court, there is the necessity to hear both sides of a legal argument before the judge decides a case.

Are journalists required to always hear out both sides before publishing an article or is it sufficient to just print what one side says…such as in a presidential rally? Is fact checking required before publication or after-the-fact?

In today’s episode of Next Witness…Please we explore the actual neutrality of judges and how the objectivity required of judges is often like the objectivity aspired to by journalists.

This discussion was prompted by the recent controversial turmoil caused by the National Association of Black Journalists inviting Donald Trump to speak to its annual convention in Chicago and Trump’s bombastic performance.

After the presidential immunity decision and other precedent crushing opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Joseph Biden is proposing significant changes to the court.

He has proposed term limits for the justices and wants those to be imposed retroactively. Justices currently have lifetime appointments.

Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the most senior justices on the court and instantly would be impacted by the retroactivity.

President Biden also is asking for a mandate to have an enforceable code of ethics imposed on Supreme Court justices. The court adopted one this past year, but it is not enforceable and there are no consequences for violating it.

Finally, President Biden is calling for a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity. This is proposed to counteract the sweeping immunity given to presidents in the Trump v. United States case on July 1.

Next Witness…Please examines all these issues in depth. Listen, subscribe rate and review this WOUB produced podcast.

As the U.S. Supreme Court term ended, it issued a series of monumental decisions.

One sharply curtailed the power of federal administrative agencies to interpret the laws they administer, overturning a precedent from 1984.

Just three days later, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the president almost complete immunity from any criminal prosecutions.

In response to these decisions, Dr. Stephen Goldman, a psychiatrist, historian and author, joined “Next Witness…Please” to express his deep concern for the future of American democracy.

Dr. Goldman brings decades of experience in academic and clinical medicine and public health. He has treated and worked with combat veterans and deeply studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, race and the impact of that war on America.

His latest book, One More War to Fight: Union Veterans Battle for Equality Through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the Lost Cause, delves into these themes.

Dr. Goldman expressed his alarm over the Supreme Court’s recent trend of overturning longstanding precedents which he believes breeds uncertainty among the populace.

He is particularly worried about the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron precedent which allowed federal administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous laws.

Now that the matters must go before judges, Dr. Goldman fears that science and scientific principles will not be fully utilized in making crucial decisions about Americans’ health and well-being.

Additionally, Dr. Goldman is critical of the Supreme Court giving autocratic immunity to the president.

He also voiced serious concerns about the implementation of Project 2025 and Schedule F if Donald Trump is re-elected, warning that both could severely damage American democracy.

https://www.stephenagoldmanmd.com/

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, in Florida, issued a 93-page opinion on July 15 dismissing all 40 counts against Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

Her ruling was based on outlier opinions that the appointment of Special Prosecutor was unconstitutional and that his office was being unconstitutionally funded by the U. S. Treasury.

Her decision is contrary to all other decisions regarding the office of Special Prosecutor even back to the days of Watergate.

She says that the Special Prosecutor could not be appointed without specific legislation from Congress authorizing the appointment and that any candidate for such office would need to be confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had been funded by the Treasury Department without Congressional authority in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

The Special Prosecutor’s office will appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson delve into the guts of this decision, explore how unique the decision is and try to project what the “next steps” will be in this case.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity raises as many questions as it answers.

It requires trial judges in Trump’s pending criminal cases to hold evidentiary hearings to determine if his actions fall outside official acts, which are not protected by immunity.

Trial courts must also assess what evidence can be used to support the remaining charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled that testimony or private records related to official acts cannot be used in trials for unofficial acts, adding further complexity.

This new process of evaluating actions leaves trial judges in a quandary without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, the “Judicial Twins” (retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson) break down the challenges trial judges face under this confusing decision and explore potential outcomes for Trump’s current cases.

A week has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's monumental ruling on presidential immunity, leaving everyone grappling with its implications.

· Did the Court grant presidents unchecked power to break laws under "official acts"?

· Has our democracy shifted towards a monarchy or autocracy where the president is above the law?

· Are lower court judges now tasked with the impossible job of distinguishing "official acts" from "unofficial acts" without considering presidential motives?

In this episode of "Next Witness...Please," retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson tackle these pressing questions.

They dissect the ruling, offering their insights and breaking down the opinion into four major parts for easy understanding.

Using clear examples, they explain:

· Absolute immunity

· Presumptive immunity

· Unofficial acts

· Evidentiary issues

Tune in to this episode for a straightforward guide to understanding the complexities of Trump v. United States.