On July 1, 2010, criminal charges were filed against a defendant in the 38th Judicial Circuit of Missouri. The defendant was unable to obtain counsel and qualified to have counsel appointed to him through the office of the public defender. The public defender's commission asked the appointment to be set aside as it was in violation of 18 CSR 10-4.010, which precluded public defenders from being appointed after reaching 100% of their caseload after three consecutive months of being over their caseload. The trial judge denied the motion and appointed a public defender to a case in violation of the caseload protocol rule. In doing so, the trial judge concluded that he believed that the Sixth Amendment required him to appoint the public defender to represent the defendant.

On September 2, 2010, public defenders in Missouri filed, in the Missouri Supreme Court, for a writ of prohibition ordering the trial court to withdraw its appointment of the public defender's office.

On July 31, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the trial court judge exceeded his authority in appointing counsel in violation of 18 CSR 10-4.010. The court further held that to appoint a public defender in this circumstance would actually have violated the 6th amendment as competent counsel could not be guaranteed. The trial court was also instructed to hold a meeting with stake-holders to alleviate the need for the protocol rule to be invoked.

Patrick Branson - 11/19/2014


compress summary