Allegheny County Header
File #: 12680-23    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Ordinance Status: Expired by Rule
File created: 5/5/2023 In control: Committee on Budget and Finance
On agenda: Final action: 12/31/2023
Title: An Ordinance of the County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, amending the Allegheny County Code of Ordinances, Division 4, entitled “Finances,” is hereby amended and supplemented by the addition of a new Chapter 492, entitled “Criminal Justice Funding Parity” in order to provide for adequate and fair representation of indigent defendants charged with criminal offenses within the County.
Sponsors: Bethany Hallam
Attachments: 1. 12680-23 Attachment - Doyle Contempt Motion.pdf
title
An Ordinance of the County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, amending the Allegheny County Code of Ordinances, Division 4, entitled “Finances,” is hereby amended and supplemented by the addition of a new Chapter 492, entitled “Criminal Justice Funding Parity” in order to provide for adequate and fair representation of indigent defendants charged with criminal offenses within the County.

body
Whereas, in 1963, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); and
Whereas, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the unanimous majority, expressly recognized that the fact "[t]hat government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."; and
Whereas, Justice Black further noted that America's criminal justice system is "adversarial," meaning that the state assumes and uses its resources to establish the defendant's guilt before the defendant is proven guilty in a court of law; and
Whereas, the Court ultimately concluded that, because "even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law," the presence of defense counsel is "fundamental and essential to fair trials" in the United States.; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court continued to extend the right to counsel to include even certain non-judicial proceedings such as police interrogations (See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and
Whereas, several years after Gideon, the Supreme Court expressly extended the right of counsel to include any defendant charged with a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment (See, Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1973), holding that "absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial...

Click here for full text