The vast majority of criminal defendants in Yolo County are represented through either the public defender’s office or by conflict counsel, also appointed by the court. Our research suggests a vast disparity in the resources available to the public defense of the accused in Yolo County following trends for the state overall.
Does that mean that defends are not being well-represented? Tracie Olson, the County’s Public Defender, says no, but at the same time the resource gap between the District Attorney’s Office and public defense is perhaps too large to ignore.
The Vanguard attended a seminar in San Francisco put on by the San Francisco Public Defenders Office. The program was entitled, Ordinary Injustice. The name came from a book written by Amy Bach. Ms. Bach was one of the panelists and she traveled across the country watching the courts and noting a long list of failures in the system, due in part because the people most affected by the injustice tend to be poor, minorities, or otherwise unable to both protect themselves and speak out. The problems have become so pervasive that they have become invisible to those who are supposed to be safeguards in the system, whether they be defender, prosecutors, or judges.
One of the more interesting panel speakers was Lawrence Benner, a Professor of Law at California Western School of Law. He wrote an article last spring in the California Western Law Review, “The Presumption of Guilt: Systemic Factors That Contribute to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in California.”
He writes, “In theory, every person accused of a serious crime comes to court protected by a presumption of innocence and the promise of effective representation by a well-prepared and experienced defense counsel, supported by defense investigators, experts, and other resources needed to mount an effective defense. Yet recent empirical research undertaken by the author for the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (Fair Commission) portrays a discouraging reality that is often far different from this theoretical model.”
He argues instead that there is a presumption of guilt in our legal system. His empirical research finds a number of troubling asymmetries in the resources and expertise that appointed defenders face versus prosecutors and his research is the jumping off point for our own brief look at the Yolo County criminal justice system.
Professor Benner’s research indicates that “More than eight out of every ten felony defendants prosecuted in the superior courts of California are indigent and must be provided with counsel by the county.” He continues:
“Our research has revealed that there are significant disparities between counties in their commitment and ability to provide effective defense services for the indigent accused. Even more disturbing, this research also documents that while public defenders represent the lion’s share of criminal defendants in California, in almost all counties across the state there is a glaring disparity between the resources allocated to the prosecution and the defense function. For every dollar spent statewide on prosecution, only fifty-three cents is spent on average for the defense of the indigent accused. Yet at least 85% (and in some counties as high as 95%) of the felony docket is comprised of defendants who must rely upon publicly provided defense services.”
In Yolo County, Tracie Olson comfortably believes that her office handles 75% of the felony cases with the remainder somehow split between the conflict panel and private attorneys. The conflict panel represents people who need public defense but the Public Defender’s office is somehow conflicted from representing them. Perhaps there are multiple defendants in the same case and the same office cannot represent all of them. The conflict panel are generally private attorneys who have contracts with the county. So it may be that 85 to 90 percent of all felony defendants are represented by public money in Yolo County, which would make Yolo County rather typical.
Unfortunately, Yolo County is also rather typical in terms of the resource disparity between the prosecutor and defense. The American Bar Association has ten principles among which is the provision, “There is parity between defense counsel and the prosecution with respect to resources and defense counsel is included as an equal partner in the justice system.” As cited by Professor Benner, Chief Justice Warren Burger declared in Argersinger v. Hamlin that “the system for providing counsel and facilities for the defense should be as good as the system which society provides for the prosecution.”
In Yolo County this remains a problem, as it does across the state.
As Tracie Olson acknowledges, “In 2009-2010, my budget was about $4.6 mil and the DA’s was about $12.3 mil. The conflict panel had a budget of $1.8 mil. The math is way off, I know.”
She did say, “The one thing the County has been very good about, however, is maintaining an attorney staffing ratio between the two offices. The traditional ratio observed is 3:2. This accounts for the fact that the DA’s Office has some attorneys whose work doesn’t really produce criminal filings that involve my office – e.g., the consumer fraud/environmental attorney and the child abduction attorney are examples. However, the DA’s Office outstrips my office in support staff, hands down.”
This is a significant problem and it actually understates the magnitude of it. One reason the DA’s office has such a vast resource advantage is that they have access to a large number of grants as we have previously reported on, that quite simply the defense does not.
But worse yet is that the office ratio does not include the resources that law enforcement and probation bring to the table that aid the prosecution in their investigations.
That brings us to another problem that Lawrence Benner cites, the ratio of attorneys to investigators. Writes Professor Benner, “A majority of the certified criminal defense specialists also reported that the lack of investigative resources was a significant problem for their indigent defense system. In our examination of appellate cases, we discovered that the failure to conduct an adequate investigation was a major cause of ineffective representation.”
Lawrence Benner found that the average ratio of attorneys to investigators was one investigator for every 4.6 attorneys, with some counties having the ratio as much as 9:1. The recommended standard is 3 to 1.
In Yolo County, according to Tracie Olson, we have 21 attorneys in the Public Defender’s office but only four investigators. That puts us slight below average at about 5.25 to 1. We should have seven according to the standards.
Professor Benner also cited excessive caseloads as a problem statewide. He writes, “when measured against national standards promulgated to ensure the delivery of adequate defense services, we found that the majority of these indigent defense systems are laboring under excessive caseloads. Over half of the public defender offices surveyed reported their staff attorneys handled caseloads that exceeded national standards established by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals and the American Bar Association.”
The problem of excessive caseloads is obvious, especially from reading Amy Bach’s book, defenders often get overwhelmed, they do not know their client’s cases that well, they lack the resources to carry out their own investigations, and thus many do not get a fair and adequate defense.
Tracie Olson argues that this is not a problem in Yolo County. “This question is hard to answer because the National Advisory Commission hasn’t defined – to my knowledge – what a “case” is,” she said. “Is it a new felony filing? Is a subsequent VOP on that same felony a separate case? What if a conflict panel attorney handled the new filing and we were appointed only at the VOP stage? Is a modification counted separately?”
She continued, “I constantly monitor caseloads of individual attorneys and case shifting happens on a weekly basis. However, because it’s in the best interests of the client to maintain consistency in representation, we try to identify such cases early in the process.”
The county is clearly hurting for resources, having to make huge cutbacks in staffing, services, across the board. The danger I think is that as we have reported, the DA’s office is increasingly relying on grants to fund programs that have slipped through the cracks. They have had to cutback on programs not funded by grants. But the Public Defender’s office does not have the same access to grants.
Moreover, we have noted and are continuing to monitor a sizable number of cases that have been either overprosecuted or should not have been prosecuted at all. Both of these are a real danger. Overprosecution tends to lead to plea agreements for defendants who either not guilty or guilty of a lesser crime. This will be exacerbated by a resource disparity as the Public Defender’s office feels more pressure to get some of these cases off their hands. Meanwhile, resources get taken up defending a number of cases that should not have been prosecuted to begin with.
The county needs to make a commitment to at the very least equally fund the public defender’s office / conflict council and the District Attorney’s office. At least that levels the playing field and gives the accused a chance. Clearly this is not a problem unique to Yolo County, however it is an issue for the county to deal with.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The power and resources of the state are always going to be greater than those of an individual defendant. In times past, efforts were made, through both codified and procedural means, to insure the protection of individuals from unreasonable prosecution and their rights to a fair trial. These efforts have been blunted by politicians’ claims of judicial leniency and police complaints of being hamstrung in their ability to investigate crimes. None of these complaints is based in fact. In Yolo county, the police have used their fear campaign to assert virtual immunity in the methods they employ for investigation and interrogation. Assisted by an ambitious DA, their power over impoverished defendants is terrifying. The only safety net is public scrutiny, made easier by blogs like Yolo Judicial Watch,( Thank you, David.), and activists who elicit news media coverage.
In theory, the DA is supposed to represent “THE PEOPLE”. As such, the DA should carry out a thorough investigation of a case, and allow the evidence to LEAD the DA to the perpetrator of the crime. If there is exculpatory evidence that exonerates an accused, the DA is supposed to turn it over to the defense and/or drop the charges. Since the DA does carry out a lot of the investigation of a case (e.g. pays for a DNA test), institutes the paperwork and process, it makes some sense that the DA would need more funding that the Public Defenders Office. But unfortunately it is not a perfect world, and DAs do not always act ethically. So the Public Defender must be able to carry out its own investigation untainted by any bias to ensure justice will be served.
“The DA has an IT Dept”
One person, but hey, every little bit helps I guess. Better to have someone on staff than have to call up County IT every time there’s a problem.
“The problems have become so pervasive that they have become invisible to those who are supposed to be safeguards in the system, whether they be defender, prosecutors, or judges.”
I’m not sure if I follow, what exactly are you trying to say here?
“He argues instead that there is a presumption of guilt in our legal system”
A great and close to home example of “presumption of guilt” is the case of the juror in the Galvan Brother’s case, who believed the brothers were high on meth, despite toxicology report coming back negative for any illicit substance or alcohol.
When the ABA states, “There is parity between defense counsel and the prosecution with respect to resources and defense counsel is included as an equal partner in the justice system.”
…What is the context? Dollar for dollar parity or in relation to the responsibilities each side has?
The reality is that the DA’s office has a larger burden, the burden of proof, and that does require more resources and staff. Does that require additional funds nearing 8 million dollars, I don’t know.
Are there any examples of any counties in the US that have near equal funding for both the DA and PD offices? If so, is the result any better, by better I mean fewer mistakes, wrongful convictions, etc.?
Ultimately, in cases that end up in trial, the jury will determine the defandants guilt or innocence and whatever pretenses, prejudices and so forth, which jurors and members of the public(potential jurors) may have, cannot be overcome by an increase in public defense funding alone, can it? To what extent do we blame the jurors for the failures in our justice system? Is that fair?
“In 2009-2010, my budget was about $4.6 mil and the DA’s was about $12.3 mil. The conflict panel had a budget of $1.8 mil. The math is way off, I know.”
It would be interesting to compare the representation the indigent receives from conflict counsel as opposed to that of the Public Defender. What resources does conflict counsel utilize when representing the indigent, similar to the PD? The same as if the client was personally footing the bill?
“The one thing the County has been very good about, however, is maintaining an attorney staffing ratio between the two offices. The traditional ratio observed is 3:2.
So it seems, but what about the attorney/support staff ratio? The DA’s Office, according to HR, has 5 (26 total including Reisig) more attorney’s than the PD’s Office, yet has 12 more legal secretaries(17 total, PD has 5.) Is that an adequate ratio? Does this affect the PD’s office?
“Lawrence Benner found that the average ratio of attorneys to investigators was one investigator for every 4.6 attorneys, with some counties having the ratio as much as 9:1. The recommended standard is 3 to 1.”
What is the standard for the DA offices supposed to be?
Another factor to consider, when discussing investigative resources, is that the DA’s Office has additional personnel whose jobs it is to assist in criminal investigations, other than DA Investigators. At the Yolo County DA’s Office, according to the County ‘authorized position resolution’ pdf dated 4/25/2010, the DA’s Office has 1 Chief Investigator, 4 Lt Investigators, 13 Investigators, 1 Senior Probation Officer and 13 Enforcement Officers.
Now, compare that to the PD’s investigative resource: 1 Chief Investigator and 3 Investigators.
ERM
“As such, the DA should carry out a thorough investigation of a case, and allow the evidence to LEAD the DA to the perpetrator of the crime.”
I believe much of the heavy lifting is taken care of by the arresting agencies before the case reaches the DA’s Office and is charged. In certain cases, a DA’s Office will handle cases from investigation, arrest, to prosecution, but this does not consitute the majority of the felony cases prosecuted, as I understand it.
Superfluous:
Good questions and comments.
“I’m not sure if I follow, what exactly are you trying to say here? “
I believe the point here and if you read the book it becomes clear, the problems are invisible to the defense attorney, prosecutors, and judges so they do not see a problem. Some of the more egregious was the finding of guilt from defendants without an attorney to represent the defendant being there. That is not happening here, but there may be other factors that we accept as normal which we should not.
Interesting point on the parity and burden of proof. Remember though, even if the DA’s office were 1:1 they would still have a huge advantage – they decide which cases to prosecute, they decide what to charge, they have police and other law enforcement working for them. I believe they suggest $1 to $1. Would that disadvantage the prosecutor? I’m not sure, as we have seen, tie seems to go not to the defendant but to the police and DA’s.
“Are there any examples of any counties in the US that have near equal funding for both the DA and PD offices? If so, is the result any better, by better I mean fewer mistakes, wrongful convictions, etc.? “
The empirical findings were that the more equal in resources, the fewer miscarriages of justice. Benner looked at California, there are some with near parity. The difficulty is also controlling for differences in type of community, size, etc. I think he would need a more rigorous statisticaly analysis than he used to come to that conclusion authoritatively.
“Ultimately, in cases that end up in trial, the jury will determine the defandants guilt or innocence and whatever pretenses, prejudices and so forth, which jurors and members of the public(potential jurors) may have, cannot be overcome by an increase in public defense funding alone, can it? To what extent do we blame the jurors for the failures in our justice system? Is that fair? “
But part of what we see is that juries only happen a very tiny percentage of the time, in some places almost never. There was a defense attorney in Amy Bach’s book who had 14 trials in 7 years as public defender. He was pleading everyone guilty. That’s actually where the most serious damage can occur.
Also when we talk about presumption of guilt, we are talking about jury, but also judge, prosecutor, and even defense attorney. When that happens, people’s rights are not well represented. I have seen some of that in Yolo, where because of the overcharging, a lot of people take pleas that should not.
Superfluous:
“What is the standard for the DA offices supposed to be?
Another factor to consider, when discussing investigative resources, is that the DA’s Office has additional personnel whose jobs it is to assist in criminal investigations, other than DA Investigators. At the Yolo County DA’s Office, according to the County ‘authorized position resolution’ pdf dated 4/25/2010, the DA’s Office has 1 Chief Investigator, 4 Lt Investigators, 13 Investigators, 1 Senior Probation Officer and 13 Enforcement Officers.
Now, compare that to the PD’s investigative resource: 1 Chief Investigator and 3 Investigators.”
I don’t know what the standard the DA is supposed to use, my guess is that they never bump against the 3:1 threshold like the PD offices do. You’ve nailed the head on the overall problem, 31: 4 is the ratio of DA investigative resources to PD investigative resources. THat’s a fair scenario?
No wonder the DA has such a high conviction rate, although once they get to trial it falls to 60:40.
David,
“Remember though, even if the DA’s office were 1:1 they would still have a huge advantage – they decide which cases to prosecute, they decide what to charge”
True, all things being equal, the office of the district attorney is always going to have the authority to charge and prosecute, as they are the chief law enforcement officials in their respective counties.
“they have police and other law enforcement working for them.”
Aside from their own law enforcement personnel, they do seek out and are assisted by other law enforcement agencies at times. The perception, I think, is that they are all on the same time, which isn’t to say that there still aren’t differences in opinion, policy, philosophy and so forth between the various agencies.
Speaking other law enforcement working for them, how does the GTF factor into the equation, seeing as they apparently work directly with the DDA vertically prosecuting gang crimes and Raven? The DA’s office is benefiting greatly, without the burden of the expense or blame(see Gutierrez/Ochoa matters), from the efforts of the GTF. This resource utilized most definitely affects the Public Defender’s office, right? They agencies are pooling their resources to combat criminal street gang activity and its members. How does the PD Office counter this? Not to mention, YONET and the various agencies tasked to combat narcotics.
David,
“as we have seen, tie seems to go not to the defendant but to the police and DA’s.”
My gut and anecdotal evidence agree with you, but I’m curious as to what the research says about your “tie goes to the police and DA” assertion.
“The empirical findings were that the more equal in resources, the fewer miscarriages of justice. Benner looked at California, there are some with near parity. “
That makes sense. I need to read his article. Why, or due to what efforts and circumstances, is it the case that some counties in California have near parity while other nowhere near parity? Is it purely a budgetary issue?
“But part of what we see is that juries only happen a very tiny percentage of the time, in some places almost never”
That is accurate, but the percentage of cases going to trial is on a rise. However, according to Ms. Olson, due to the DA’s pushing cases to trial, her office is getting a better outcome for their clients than they would have if the DA’s office would have “played ball.” Does that sound right, I remember reading something to that effect somewhere.
“Bach’s book who had 14 trials in 7 years as public defender. He was pleading everyone guilty.”
I think some attorney’s are generally afraid or at least leery trials, which I guess could result in miscarriages of justice. I also wouldn’t be shocked to find out that prosecutors play this to their advantage, not in the least. Just playing the game.
“Also when we talk about presumption of guilt, we are talking about jury, but also judge, prosecutor, and even defense attorney.”
What percentage of judges do you think have prosecutorial experience or backgrounds in that field versus criminal defense experience or public defender backgrounds? It might be interesting to look into that. A background doesn’t necessarily equate to a complete bias, but it may explain some judicial behavior to an extent.
David,
“31: 4 is the ratio of DA investigative resources to PD investigative resources.”
Actually, a few of the DA’s investigative personnel/resources probably work in the capacity of a child support or consumer/environmental fraud investigator or enforcement officer, which Ms. Olson claims does not affect her office much. Although, do we know for sure that these individuals working in this capacity do not function in any other, such that the PD’s office would be affected?
Nonetheless, the number is still roughly seven times(my estimate) that of the PD’s and this doesn’t include GTF and YONET personnel/resources.
One of the key points in this article has not even been brought up in the discussion. The DA’s office is able to get grant money while the Public Defender’s office and even those who hire private Defense lawyers cannot. This sets ups scenarios where injustice can happen. The DA relies on those grants. In order to keep getting the grant money, the DA has to demonstrate that he is getting more convictions and taking more cases to trial. With this kind of numbers game, the DA may choose to push weak cases through or feel the pressure to push for convictions when he may otherwise would not.
Then you have a situation where juries tend to believe that if something has come to trial–especially a in case with a lot of charges, that the defendant must be guilty.
When money is a motivator, justice gets forgotten. Not only does the Public Defender have less to help in the defense–the DA has money motivating him to go for the conviction no matter what.
You make some very valid points, Fight Against Injustice. I think a lot of jurors very well may have a mind set that if the person is charged, the police/DA must have had good reason. Therefore the accused is probably guilty. Presumption of innocence is sometimes a hard concept to achieve, though is the ideal to strive for.
However, we have seen cases in Yolo where single jurors hold out for innocence against all the other jurors, when a single juror believes there is reasonable doubt. Problem is “reasonable doubt” is a fairly subjective term. One man’s reasonable doubt is another man’s dead certainty…
Is the Federal/State Reimbursement of 16.1% on the DA Revenue pie the Federal and State grant money to fight gang problems?
If so, this explains why the DAs office tries to prosecute every crime in West Sacramento allegedly committed by Latino residents as a gang crime with the addition of gang enhancements. I believe someone in Davis called it “cash for convictions”.
The residents of Broderick and Bryte never asked the West Sac Police Dept. or the DAs office for an injunction in West Sacramento because one was not needed.
I wonder if the residents in the gang injunction “safety zone” are aware that, if they try to sell their residential property in this zone, they are required by the Real Estate Code to disclose to all potential buyers, that the property is located in a blighted area where a gang injunction is in place.
About 30 years ago, I was a juror on an “”Assault with a Deadly Weapon” trial involving a grandfather who allegedly threatened and menaced three police officers. His attorney was skilled and passionate. The case came down to the testimony of the three officers, the old man and his grandchildren. Before discussing the facts, or taking a vote, one fellow said,” Well this shouldn’t take long. We know what happened.” Fortunately that didn’t sit well with the rest of the jurors and we reviewed the evidence and testimony , finding huge discrepancies in the officers’ testimony. We acquitted and the ADA informed us we were probably wise, as the three officers were under indictment in a number of cases involving false statements and perjury.
FAI,
“even those who hire private Defense lawyers cannot”
Should privately hired defense attorneys be given government grants?
What would public defense counsel be receiving grant money for, specifically-child molest defense, criminal street gang defense…
The grants exist to give the DA’s and law enforcement additional resources used specifically to combat and prosecute specific crimes, most notoriously gang and sex crimes. The PD’s resources are based on the DA’s, right? So how would that work, having grants available to PD’s that have contingencies(ie defending certain crimes)?
Maybe, if the DA’s office receives a grant to be used to prosecute certain offenses, which assumes there will be a significant increase in the arrest and prosecution of these offenses in the county(affects the PD), than the PD’s office should get certain cut of that grant, so they can adequately defend the indigent. Or that the county is forced to increase the PD’s budget relative to the amount the DA’s office receives in a particular grant?
Can you really see this happening though-grants available to public defense counsel in an attempt by the government to increase the quality of representation alleged child molesters receive? What role does politics play in the availability and funding of grants?
“When money is a motivator, justice gets forgotten.”
Does your assertion apply to the other side of the coin or just the prosecution?
In Sacramento 99% of the defendants in criminal cases take a plea. From personal experience, I can assure the public that almost all criminal defense attorneys heavily pressure their clients into taking a plea, even when the evidence clearly shows they are innocent. They tell their clients they can’t win because all the cards are stacked against them, and they will suffer far worse punishment if they don’t take the plea.
There just aren’t enough resources to defend people the police and DA have decided are guilty and have summarily fixed the “evidence” to convict them. In the words of a prominent Sacramento defense attorney “You are guilty until proven innocent in this county.”
Maybe someday the Feds will come in and hold this lawless system accountable.
Superflous Man:
Of course, I don’t think grants should be given to private attorneys. The point I was trying to make is that money is a factor here too. I know of several cases where the victims were found innocent in trials that were so weak they should have never gone to trial. Yet the persons hiring a private attorney had to spend between $400,000 and 1,000,000 to defend themselves–which is ridiculous if the case should have never gone to trial.
The point I am trying to make is that grant money should be given to areas like: helping victims and families, drug rehabilitation, education for prevention of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners. Grant money should not be given to one side of the judicial process for court trials, and then have the number of trials and convictions be the criteria for continuing getting the grant funds. The DA’s office should not be the recipient of public grant money and neither should the Public Defender’s Office. It should be handled by a group that is not part of the judicial process.
FAI,
You wrote, “Of course, I don’t think grants should be given to private attorneys.”
I guess when you said “The DA’s office is able to get grant money while the Public Defender’s office and even those who hire private Defense lawyers cannot” it came off differently to me. I wasn’t sure why you would toss those who have the resources to hire private defense counsel into the mix. I don’t think the disparity is quite as great when comparing private defense counsel and prosecution, as it is between public defense counsel and the prosecution.
Grant money is absolutely a factor, no disagreement here.
“I know of several cases where the victims were found innocent in trials that were so weak they should have never gone to trial.”
I don’t doubt this for a second, but this is just anecdotal evidence. It would be more compelling if there were some data with which to compare the anecdotal evidence we so often here and read about.
“Yet the persons hiring a private attorney had to spend between $400,000 and 1,000,000 to defend themselves–which is ridiculous if the case should have never gone to trial.”
My question to you is…has the DA’s Office violated any laws or code of ethics, under Reisig? If he has or is suspected of having either, why haven’t people filled complaints, contacted the grand jury or the CA State Bar? Or have they and nothing has come of them? Is it merely the criminal justice system itself that you have problems with, because I can guarantee you these problems are not unique to Yolo County?
Can’t those who have been prosecuted seek damages, if the prosecution’s case was completely baseless?
Regarding grants, I am not necessarily opposed to them, but the contingencies sound like they could do more harm than good. I would need to know more about them to develop a strong opinion either way.
nnnnn
As a 20 plus yr conflict panel defense attorney for yolo county I am frankly shocked that Ms. Olson would profer that the conflict defense panel has a budget roughly 40 % of her entire office with aparrantly 22 attorneys, 4 full time investigators some support staff I would presume all with full health and retirement benefits. Conflict defense attorneys have a set, reglarly renegotiated between each of us and the County Counsel, contracts that pay a monthly sum whether we are appointed to 1 case or 100. We pay our own overhead and our own benefits. I assume (I agree your math must be way off) that she is excluding all of her office employee benefits and including in conflict payments all capital (death penalty requested) cases and many other major cases which in the past the public defenders office has consistently declined on a conflict of interest they must meerly state without explanation. While much less of a problem since Ms. Olson’s tenure began a short time ago it is worth noteing that in both recent capital cases (the murders of law enforcement officers Andy Stevens and Tony Diaz)the public defenders office declared a conflict neccesitateing the appointment of 4 attorneys at 10s of thousands of dollars in pre trial attoney costs, 5 thousand more per week during trial, per attorney and an almost open book on other expenses such as investigation. This was outside the public defenders office and outside the conflict panel contrats, that is private attorneys had to be found and retained. The cost can be fairly stated as astronomical. In fairness, Ms. Olson makes every effort to avoid conflicts and to take the heaviest and thus often the most expensive to represent defendant.
Budget crisis will continue. Criminal justice is best served by adequate funding to the experteese of a dedicated public defender’s and prosecutorial office. However, more and more the equal experteese of private conflict providers is equal in quality and a much better economic deal for the county. Many counties, in fact, have done away with traditional goverment employee public defenders offices entirely (Placer the most recent) for a fully private contract with private attorneys. This all being said, it is my opinion that yolo county, through the county counsels office, the public defenders office and the conflict panel has created a well working and adequately (at least in these hard times)funded criminal defense representation system that at all costs must be maintained.