Anyone charged with a crime is entitled to legal representation. Largely, this job falls to a public defender, either state or federal, who is generally overworked and unable to give the attention to the case that he or she should. Because of the caseload, many cases are pled that maybe should not be. But then there’s another side of the issue—public defenders that do not seem to care about their clients.
Take the case of Mychal Bell, a member of the Jena Six. The Jena Six were so named because their case occurred in Jena, Louisiana (in 2007). There had been a racially charged atmosphere at the school where the Jena Six and those involved with them attended. There were accusations back and forth, but the arrests of the six black youths, ages 17 and 18, followed a battery committed on a white boy which allegedly occurred after at least two nooses were found hanging from a tree frequented by white students the day after a black student sat under the tree with the principal’s permission. Tensions grew after the white students who allegedly hung the nooses were given what some considered light discipline involving in-school suspension. When matters escalated and an altercation ensued and a white male student was involved in a fight with several black male students, the black students were arrested.
Mychal Bell, age 17, was charged as an adult. The white prosecutor who handled the case charged Bell with aggravated battery—a charge that required the use of a deadly weapon. The prosecutor alleged that the sneakers Bell wore when he kicked the victim were the deadly weapons. At trial, Bell was represented by a public defender. Despite witnesses who would testify that Bell was not involved, Bell’s public defender urged Bell to take a plea. Bell refused. During trial, Bell’s public defender rested his case without calling a single witness or offering any evidence on Bell’s behalf. Even though the jury pool consisted of 50 venire, none was black. Bell’s public defender never challenged the venire. The jury found Bell guilty. Facing 22 years in prison, Bell secured a new set of attorneys privately hired on his behalf. Eventually, his case was resolved on time served on other unrelated charges
The question is, what made the difference in the case? Do you think most lawyers would have challenged an all-white jury in a jurisdiction that was 10 percent black? Do you think most lawyers would have put on a case for their client where there were willing witnesses to challenge the prosecution’s witnesses? What makes the difference? Where do ethics come into play? If lawyers are bound by their code of professional ethics, do you think the prosecutor and public defender abided by them here? What is the impact of such an occurrence on the defendant as well as on society viewing the situation? Should the judge viewing this situation step in? Would it be ethical to do so? Who are the stakeholders and what are their issues? Does this appear to be equal justice under law as promised by the U.S. Constitution?
This case drew national attention and captured the media for over a year while the case worked its way through the courts. For a full story see: Mangold, T. (2007). Racism goes on trial again in America’s deep south. The Observer, Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/20/usa.theobserver.
