Really? Do you think Mrs. Baden's pro bono work trial standards are going to be the same as those of either a public defender (paid for by the state) or a pribvately contracted and paid attorney (paid for directly by the client)? When the lawyers payment is publicity, limelight and telivision time, is the eventual work product the same or as effective as a situation where the Lawyers interests have been established and met from the outset?
Having a Lawyer who does not put on a winning case is not grounds for appeal or aquital because of incompetant trial representation. There needs to be some act of gross malfeasence. the defense attorney who slept through court. Failing to depose, speak with or call key witnesses that are listed in the discovery. failure to agressively act for their client. In the case of JB he is doing what he should be doing. He is arguing motions, he is seeking evidence, he is spending an awful lot of time with his client. he may be a fool and an idiot, but that does not necesarily rise to the standard of reversable issue.
It isn't that the court will take the mechanism of payment into account to assume that a public defender is not doing an adequite job. The court will take the source of the attorney into account. In the case of a privately hired attorney, the client has every right to dismiss and replace a lawyer if they feel they are getting inadequite council. Especially before the trial starts. This is far less of an option for a case involving a public defender. Since the defendents are more often tied to their public defenders with no other recourse, some closer examination may occur.
