An Investigation of Indigent Defense Systems: Public Defenders vs. Court-Appointed Attorneys

36 Pages Posted: 2 Aug 2016 Last revised: 19 Nov 2016

Yotam Shem-Tov

University of California Berkeley

Date Written: November 1, 2016

Abstract

To provide essential, constitutionally mandated legal services for defendants without financial means, US courts employ indigent defense systems composed of private court-appointed attorneys and public defenders’ organizations. I investigate the public defender’s causal effect on defendant sentencing outcomes relative to private court-appointed attorneys using a new “twins design” identification strategy. I argue and show empirically that in multiple defendant cases the decision of who is assigned to the public defender organization in jurisdiction X, a large urban locality, can be treated as close to a randomized experiment, which can be utilized to measure the effectiveness of court-appointed private attorneys relative to public defenders. I find that public defenders out-perform court-appointed attorneys in a range of sentencing outcomes. Employing a similar identification strategy in federal courts finds that public defenders perform at least as well if not better then court-appointed attorneys in multiple defendant cases. I provide strong evidence of selection in the assignment of attorney types to defendants in both jurisdiction X and federal courts, which makes a naıve comparison invalid and misleading.

Keywords: Indegent Defense, Criminal Justice, Crime

JEL Classification: K14

Suggested Citation

Shem-Tov, Yotam, An Investigation of Indigent Defense Systems: Public Defenders vs. Court-Appointed Attorneys (November 1, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2816622 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2816622

Yotam Shem-Tov (Contact Author)

University of California Berkeley ( email )

Berkeley, CA
United States
5102804648 (Phone)
5102804648 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
199
Rank
122,062
Abstract Views
645