"If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed to you"

[Kentuckysteve 0]

Found this online.Maybe it will help.

 

Each state, and sometimes each county, will have rules that will determine whether or not you qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. These rules often have leeway built in to take into account the seriousness of the alleged crime or the probable length of the trial. So, even if you make a decent wage and may be able to hire a private attorney to work on a short case, a judge may decide that you qualify for a court-appointed lawyer if the charges against you are more serious or if it appears that your trial may last some time.

Lastly, if you earn income, but it is not high enough to hire a private attorney and not low enough to qualify you for free legal assistance through a court-appointed lawyer, the judge may provide you with "partial indigency." Under this rule, you will be represented by a court-appointed lawyer, but you will be ordered to reimburse the state for a portion of the costs of your representation during trial.

[Poopdeck 0]

Cold, in PA the chief public defender decides. If you don't like his/her decision the courts (a judge) decides. Not all Living expenses count because as I said numerous times you do not need a super duty, HBO, iPhone, sage rods and a host of other things we spend our money on. Heating your house would count as would feeding yourself and your family. Get it out of your head that we are entitled to an attorney. We are not. INDIGENTS and only INDIGENTS are. There is not a secret formula used to decide if you are INDIGENT. It's very easy to determine this and it is not rocket science or Brain surgery. Income vs expenses for your basic needs. Simple.

[Mike West 0]

Lastly, if you earn income, but it is not high enough to hire a private attorney and not low enough to qualify you for free legal assistance through a court-appointed lawyer, the judge may provide you with "partial indigency." Under this rule, you will be represented by a court-appointed lawyer, but you will be ordered to reimburse the state for a portion of the costs of your representation during trial.

 

This is what happened to a friend of mine

Court said he could afford his own attorney he claimed he couldn't

He showed up to court three times without an attorney judge threatened him with contempt of court 4th time they appointed him an attorney and then sent him a bill for it

[Cold 0]

Thanks Kentuckysteve, that definitely helps explain it a lot better. Sounds like a mix of several different factors, but something that each state has worked out in their own legal code, accounting for the relevant factors...not just a judge saying yes or no.

 

Poopdeck, idk why you have such a chip on your shoulder. I never said that you or anyone else was wrong, I just hadn't seen anything that specifically addressed the subject in my searching. In fact, that was part of the reason WHY I was asking, and never said anything at all about your thoughts about living expenses. The reason I asked is because while it may be "very easy to determine" for you, with your insider knowledge of the system, for others, myself included, it isn't something we deal with every day. If answering my questions about it makes you so upset, I'd rather you just not answer since it's clear that other people here have similar experience. There's no need to get upset. Just trying to learn since someone brought up an interesting subject.

 

Mike, good stuff as well. Sounds like a convenient route for the courts to get around a defendant trying to hold up the process by just never getting a lawyer. And I've gotta ask...did your friend win his trial?

[Mike West 0]

Nope he was guilty DUI And some weed

All said and done I think it cost Him a little over $15,000 Plus lost a good job

[Mike West 0]

One of those come for vacation leave on probation places

[mikechell 0]

I am one of those that believes DUI should be MUCH stiffer fines or jail time, automatically. $15,000.00 looks like a good fine for it.

"Driving Under the Influence" includes using a cell phone or texting, in my opinion.

[Mike West 0]

I am one of those that believes DUI should be MUCH stiffer fines or jail time, automatically. $15,000.00 looks like a good fine for it.

"Driving Under the Influence" includes using a cell phone or texting, in my opinion.

Me too my sister was killed by a drunk driver

And I've heard a DUI now days will run you about 20K with everything involved

Plus if your job involves driving a company vehicle you can kiss that goodbye

[Poopdeck 0]

Cold, I'm sorry if I came off in the way you think I did. I'm not upset at all. Please do not mistake passion for anger.

[rstaight 0]

I am one of those that believes DUI should be MUCH stiffer fines or jail time, automatically. $15,000.00 looks like a good fine for it.

"Driving Under the Influence" includes using a cell phone or texting, in my opinion.

With you on that one Mike. Some SOB gets in a car drunker than a skunk, has an "accident" and seriously injures or kills someone they get what amounts to be a slap on the wrist. When you get behind the wheel impaired you know what can happen, it's no "accident" I feel an argument for pre-meditated is in order.

 

What would I like to see? If you are under the influence and are involved in a situation that involves a death, automatic 10 to 15 years. If you are pulled over or have an accident with no injuries, $20K fine, 3 to 5 years probation and a half page add in the local newspapers of your apology for endangering the general public.

 

Thank you for allowing me to rant. Now I can take a sigh and go on about my day.

[vicrider 0]

Since the subject of DUI has come up I have to have mixed emotions on this one. First, if entrapment can get drunks off the road great, and I have no problem with checkpoints on the driveway of every bar at quitting time. The thing is, I spent several years driving drunk and was just lucky I never hurt anyone or wrecked a car or got nailed with a DUI. Up where I lived cops usually knew who was driving drunk and when and would sometimes stop them, raise hell and send them home. If you were back out that night you were dumb enough to get that DUI, and some guys were dumb enough. I got stopped a few times and told to take it home. Reason they knew I was drunk. I was driving too slow. In my lane, not swerving, but 20 miles under the speed limit. I lived up in that country (Finland/Silver Bay MN) for 20 years and cannot remember a drunk driving that involves multiple vehicles. A few guys took themselves out but traffic was VERY rural and though it sounds dumb the vast majority knew when we were really too drunk to drive and got a ride, sometimes needing help to the car.

 

So what's that mean? I'm in favor of stopping drunk driving but can't help but feel like a hypocrite with my past and the good luck I had in bringing such devastating consequences to a first time offender, especially if he was just over the limit and handling himself well. Us alcoholics learned at an early age to navigate well past the alcohol limits of the weekend social drinker. By the way, I haven't had a drink in over 35 years don't plan on a drink today.

[Cold 0]

I believe that we should absolutely come down, and come down hard, on impaired driving.

 

That being said, I feel that, in some ways, the current DUI laws are set up more to generate revenue than to address impairment.

 

I understand that the Breathalyzer/BAC is one of the few convenient, objective ways to measure alcohol intake, and that any method to measure actual impairment will be, by its very nature, far more subjective (and thus prone to failure)...I'm just saying I can see a valid argument against the current status quo, whether I'd adopt that position or not.

 

Right along with that, though, I feel that if we're going to be that draconian when it comes to alcohol, it seems to be a bit of a mixed message that we come down comparatively easy on things like texting and driving, eating & drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) while driving, and and of the other various activities I've seen people doing in their cars, from reading the paper to putting on makeup to changing clothes (and yes, I've seen all of those).

 

I guess there's no elegant way to handle all of this (and further, no way to legislate good decision-making skills)...I guess I just feel that, in some cases, the DUI laws come down unjustly hard on relatively responsible people. Then again, knowing that this is the current state of affairs may be a deterrent to some (I'd be interested to find out if this were really the case, since for most crimes, increased severity of punishment is almost always not a meaningful deterrent). In its current state, though, I feel that the system would be well served by allowing first-time offenders and those in otherwise good standing to mitigate some of the impact of certain DUI convictions. If you are swerving around or severely impaired, no, you have it coming. But for someone who went to happy hour with some co-workers, drank in moderation, and happens to hit a checkpoint...blows a .08 while showing no outward signs of impairment...I don't really think that it does anybody any good (aside from the government getting some sweet, sweet revenue) to force this person to pay thousands in fines, lose their license (and possibly by extension their job) and have such a thing on their record for the rest of their life...(or pay off the system). Perhaps degrees of offense would be the answer? I don't really know.

[mikechell 0]

I spent several years driving drunk and was just lucky I never hurt anyone or wrecked a car or got nailed with a DUI.

 

By the way, I haven't had a drink in over 35 years don't plan on a drink today.

Vic ... you're "mixed emotions" are understandable, but you state the exact reason for DUI stops. Statistics show that close to 98% of habitual drunk drivers go through life lucky. But the remaining percentage that aren't lucky, are responsible for well over 10,000 deaths every year.

As I said before, I think DUI should include any activity which takes one's mind off driving. I don't agree with legalizing marijuana because there's no immediate test like a breathalyzer. When they get that, then we can think about legalizing it, then arresting everyone who's DUI with it.

Congratulations, by the way, for riding that wagon for 35 years.

[Poopdeck 0]

Contrary to popular opinion traffic enforcement (tickets, DUI arrests) are not revenue makers. They are revenue takers. Costs to prosecute Dui's are very high. To pay the police, the hospital, the labs, the lawyers, the probation department, and possibly prison and rehab staff, costs 10 times more then any fine mentioned. For traffic tickets, In pa the state takes half of the fine while the local town takes the other half. By the way that 200 dollar ticket you received only has a 35.00 fine. The rest are fees to pay the court workers, to cover uninsured motorists and other Fees to pay for various other programs. so the municipality is making a whopping $17.50 per ticket. In pa there is a point system so 3/4 of those ticketed ask for a hearing. The cop is making 30 to 40 bucks an hour to attend this hearing, assuming he is not off and at court on overtime with a minimum 2 or 3 hours OT for a local court hearing. Every ticket written costs the municipality. I always get a kick out of those who believe cops are writing tickets to generate revenue for the municipality. Most cops hate the politicians so they are not writing tickets for the politicians revenue stream. If politicians ever told cops to write more tickets to generate more revenue it would result in far less tickets written. Tickets cost money but its a necessary evil to prevent injuries, fatalities, and property damage to the public.

 

Breath tests are a thing of the past and have been abandoned by most areas in PA with the possible exception of very rural counties. Breath tests do not detect drugs and are the least accurate test for alcohol because the results are based on scientific computations. Breath tests measures the amount of alcohol that is being expelled from the body. This amount is esstrapelated out to what amounts to a good guess as to the amount of alcohol that is actually in the blood.

 

Blood tests are the preferred method since it measures very accurately the amount of drugs and alcohol actually in the blood.

[Adam Saarinen 0]

Hope you took all your rented VHS videos back to the shop, back in the day?