Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T05:15:25.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Different Ways of Losing: Public Defenders (and Private Counsel) at the Supreme Court of Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Juan F. González-Bertomeu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though most countries have established public defense systems to represent indigent defendants, this is far from implying their offices are in good shape. Indeed, significant variation likely exists in the systems' effectiveness, across societies and at the subnational level. Defense agencies' performance likely depends on their configuration, including their funding, their internal arrangements, and their selection and retention mechanisms. Centered on public defense in Argentina, this article compares the performance of public and retained counsel at the country's Supreme Court. Public defenders' offices received a boost in the last two decades, and are institutionally well positioned to square off against prosecutors, putting them at least on par with the averaged retained counsel. Using a fresh dataset of around 3000 appeal decisions from 2008 to 2013, the study largely tests representational capabilities by looking at whether counsel meets briefs' formal requirements, a subset of decisions particularly valuable to reduce potential biases. It finds that formal dismissals are significantly less frequent when a public defender is named in an appeal, particularly when a federal defender is involved. It also discusses and tests alternative mechanisms. The article's findings illuminate discussions of support structures for litigation, criminal justice reform, and criminal defendants' rights.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 354 - 390
Copyright
© 2020 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Diego Alustiza, Mariana Acevedo, Magdalena Bulit, Viridiana Isla, Antonio Ribichini, Georgina Timossi, and Isabel Valadez provided very useful research assistance. The Cámara de Casación Penal provided access to this court's files. For their valuable comments and suggestions, I thank Gustavo Arballo, Alejandro Chetman, José R. Nicolás-Carlock, Marcelo Ferrante, Cecilia Hopp, Lewis Kornhauser, Margarita Maxit, Sergio Muro, Pablo Pejlatowicz, Kelly Rader, Roberto Saba, Maria Paula Saffon, Catalina Smulovitz, Pavithra Suryanarayan, the participants of seminars at LASA 2018, University of Palermo, and ITAM, as well as the editors of, and three anonymous referees from, Law & Society Review. All remaining errors are the author's.

References

Anderson, James M. and Heaton, Paul. 2012. “How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make? The Effect of Defense Counsel on Murder Case Outcomes.” Yale Law J. 122: 154.Google Scholar
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC). 2005. La Corte y los Derechos 2003–2004. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC). 2008. La Corte y los derechos 2005–2007. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Binder, Alberto. 2005. “El Mercado de los Servicios Legales y la Crisis de la Abogacía.” Sistemas Judiciales 9.Google Scholar
Binder, Alberto, Cape, Ed, and Namoradze, Zaza. 2015. Defensa Penal Efectiva en América Latina. Bogotá: ADC, CERJUSC, CONECTAS, DEJUSTICIA.Google Scholar
CELS. 2004. “Ejes Para una Reforma del Ministerio Público.” White paper.Google Scholar
CEPEJ. 2014. “European Judicial Systems. Efficiency and Quality of Justice”. CEPEJ Studies No. 20, Edition 2014 (2012 Data). https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2016/STAT/Google Scholar
Champion, Dean. 1989. “Private Counsels and Private Defenders. A Look at Weak Cases, Prior Records and Leniency in Bargaining.” J. Criminal Justice 17: 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1965. “A Theory of Bureaucracy.” The American Economic Rev. 55: 439–46.Google Scholar
Emmelman, Debra S., Manuscript. “Past, Present and Future: Research into Advocacy for Criminal Defendants”.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “Why the ‘Haves' Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change” Law & Society Review, Litigation and Dispute Processing: Part One (Autumn, 1974), 9: 95–160Google Scholar
Hanson, Roger and Ostrom, Brian. 1998. “Indigent Defenders Get the Job Done and Done Well.” In The Criminal Justice System: Politics and Policies, edited by Cole, G. F., Gertz, M., and Bunger, A., 264–88. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Hartley, Richard, Miller, Holly Ventura, and Spohn, Cassia. 2010. “Do you Get What you Pay for? Type of Counsel and its Effect on Criminal Court Outcomes.” J. of Criminal Justice 38: 1063–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. and Sill, Kaitlyn. 2007. “Experienced Advocates and Litigation Outcomes: Repeat Players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 443–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Morris B., Rubin, Paul H., and Sheperd, Joanna. 2005. “An Empirical Study of Public Defender Effectiveness: Self-Selection by the “Marginally Indigent”.” Ohio State J. of Criminal Law 3: 223.Google Scholar
Huang, Kuo-Chang, Kong-Pin, Chen, and Lin, Chang-Ching. 2010. “Does the Type of Criminal Defense Counsel Affect Case Outcomes? A Natural Experiment in Taiwan.” International Rev. of Law and Economics 30: 113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Radha. 2007. “An Analysis of the Performance of Federal Indigent Defense Counsel”, NBER Working Paper No. 13187, https://www.nber.org/papers/w13187. Accessed December 2019.Google Scholar
Jaffee, David. 2008. Organization Theory: Tension and Change. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
La Rosa, Mariano. 2001. “La Defensa Pública Oficial en su Inserción Constitucional como Custodio y Garante de los Derechos Individuales.” Jurisprudencia Argentina III-1156.Google Scholar
López-Puleio, M. Fernanda. 2002. “Justicia Penal y Defensa Pública. La Deuda Pendiente.” Revista Latinoamericana de Política Criminal Pena y Estado 5: 23–48.Google Scholar
López-Puleio, M. Fernanda. 2007. “El Acceso a un Defensor Penal y Sus Ámbitos Especialmente Críticos.” In La Aplicación de los Tratados Sobre Derechos Humanos en el Ámbito Local. La Experiencia de una Década, edited by Abramovich, Víctor Y Otros. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar
Madeira, Ligia Mori. 2014. “Institutionalization, Reform and Independence of the Public Defender's Office in Brazil.” Brazilian Political Science Rev. 8: 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madeira, Ligia Mori. 2016. Informe Anual 2015.Google Scholar
Madeira, Ligia Mori. 2018. Informe Anual 2017.Google Scholar
Muro, Sergio, Chehtman, Alejandro, Silva, Jorge, and Amaya, Nelson. 2018. “Testing Representational Advantage in the Argentine Supreme Court.” J. of Law and Courts 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, S. 1973. “Effects of Alternative Types of Counsel on Criminal Procedure Treatment.” Indiana Law J. 48: 404–26.Google Scholar
Pérez-Otero, Josefina. 2015. “Defensa indigente en Estados Unidos y en Argentina: una Comparación Sobre Cómo la Gente en Situación de Pobreza Enfrenta el Sistema Penal.” Revista de Derecho Procesal Penal 2015–2.Google Scholar
Pfaff, John. 2016. “A Mockery of Justice for the Poor.” New York Times A19: April 30, 2016.Google Scholar
Quintana-Navarrete, Miguel, Fondevila, Gustavo, Manuscript. “The Effect of Public Defenders on the Outcome of Criminal Cases: Evidence from Mexico, a Newly Adversarial Jurisdiction”.Google Scholar
Robinson, Oliver. 2014. “Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 11: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulovitz, Catalina. 2019. “Public Defense and Access to Justice in a Federal Context: Who Gets What, and How, in the Argentinian Provinces.” In Beyond High Courts, edited by Kapiszewski, Diana and Ingram, Matthew. Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Stuntz, William. 1997. “The Uneasy Relationship between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice.” Yale Law J. 107: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Marian R. 2002. “A Comparison of Sentencing Outcomes for Defendants with Public Defenders Versus Retained Counsel in Florida Circuit Court.” The Justice System J. 23: 249–57.Google Scholar
Williams, Marian R. 2013. “The Effectiveness of Public Defenders in Four Florida Counties.” J. of Criminal Justice 41: 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf-Harlow, Caroline. 2000. Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Special Report 1–12.Google Scholar