Roanoke Times

Letters to the Editor — March 12, 2007

Even the guilty deserve a competent defense

In your March 2 editorial "In defense of the poor," concerning the current cap on fees for appointed counsel, you state that the cap was "[n]o problem, if the person who has to do the time actually did the crime."

Under the U.S. and Virginia constitutions, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty in a fair trial by an impartial trier of fact.

The right to competent defense counsel ought not to depend on guilt or innocence. A competent defense is essential for all defendants, especially if the evidence used to prosecute them was obtained in violation of due process of law.

Almost every major decision of the U.S. Supreme Court establishing due process rights of criminal defendants, such as Miranda v. Arizona and Terry v. Ohio, involved defendants who almost certainly were guilty.

Every criminal defendant is entitled to a competent defense, and attorneys who represent indigent defendants are entitled to fair compensation for their services in every instance.

The General Assembly's decision to raise the cap is laudable and was necessary to protect the rights of all criminal defendants, both the innocent and the guilty.

JOHN S. KOEHLER

ROANOKE