Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:23:49.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Minnesota Public Defender System and the Criminal Law Process: A Comparative Study of Behavior at the Judicial District Level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Roger W. Benjamin  and
Theodore B. Pedeliski
Roger W. Benjamin
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Theodore B. Pedeliski
Affiliation:
University of North Dakota (Grand Forks)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1965 the Minnesota legislature created the office of State Public Defender and authorized the establishment of defender systems in the ten judicial districts which comprise the state judicial system. District systems were to be established upon decision of the district judges for each given district. The period from 1966 through 1967 saw the expansion of the system from two original districts to six additional judicial districts. This study describes and explains the effects of the introduction of this indigent defense system upon the criminal law process in the state of Minnesota. What follows essentially focuses on a problem of institutionalization, i.e., the transformation of an idea or concept into a working institution and its subsequent manifest or latent consequences. (On this problem, see Warriner [1962] and Eisenstadt [1957].) The primary task of this study is the determination of the changes effected by the introduction of the system upon the variables by which the criminal law process is statistically monitored. The replacement of the appointive counsel system by the public defender system assumes a change in the operative goals of the defense system. The statistics which monitor the criminal law process are analyzed for changes which indicate a modification in those operative goals. Particular emphasis is placed on the discovery of trends in the process variables which indicate goals pointing to a maximization of due process values. We also undertake a comparative analysis which emphasizes differentiation congruent with increasing experience under the public defender system. Finally, the study analyzes reaction to the system on the part of personnel involved in the adversary process affecting indigent accused.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , November 1969 , pp. 279 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 by the Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article is a substantial revision and expansion of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association at Chicago, Illinois in May 1968. This study is based on a research project undertaken to evaluate the impact of the introduction of the public defender system upon the administration of criminal justice in Minnesota. Chief investigators were Roger W. Benjamin and Theodore Pedeliski. Valuable criticism, advice, and information was received at various stages from C. Paul Jones, Minnesota State Public Defender; Chief Justice Oscar Knutson of the Minnesota Supreme Court; John Cleary, Deputy Director of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Professors David Graven and John Sprague; and Lee Silverstein, Research Attorney, American Bar Center. Research and interviewing assistance of Susan O. White and Janice Walros is gratefully acknowledged. Research was supported by the National Defender Project of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association; the Minnesota State Judicial Council, the University of Minnesota Graduate School; and the National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship Program. Computer assistance through the University of Minnesota Computer Center is also acknowledged.

References

Cases

DRAPER v. WASHINGTON (1963) U.S. 372: 487; S.Ct. 83: 774.Google Scholar
DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA (1963) U.S. 372: 353; S.Ct 83: 814.Google Scholar
ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS (1964) U.S. 378: 478; S.Ct. 84: 1758.Google Scholar
GRIFFIN v. ILLINOIS (1956) U.S. 351: 12; S.Ct. 76: 585.Google Scholar
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (1966) U.S. 384: 436; S.Ct. 86: 1602.Google Scholar
GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) U.S. 372: 335; S.Ct. 83: 792.Google Scholar
STATE v. BILLSTROM (1967) Minn. 275: 525; NW2d 149: 281.Google Scholar
STATE v. KEISER (1966) Minn. 274: 265; NW2d 143: 75.Google Scholar
STATE v. RICHTER (1965) Minn. 270: 307; NW2d 133: 537.Google Scholar
STATE v. SPRIEGL (1965) Minn. 272: 488; NW2d 139: 167.Google Scholar
STATE ex rel RASMUSSEN v. TAHASH (1965) Minn. 272: 539; NW2d 141: 3.Google Scholar

References

BENJAMIN, R. W. and J. H., KAUTSKY (1968) “Communism and economic development.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 62 (March): 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENJAMIN, R. W. and T. B., PEDELISKI (1968a) “The public defender and the judicial district process: an interim report on the Minnesota public defender program.” St. Paul: Office of the State Public Defender.Google Scholar
BENJAMIN, R. W. and T. B., PEDELISKI (1968b) “Expenditures and defense counsel activity from 1964-1967.” St. Paul: Office of the State Public Defender.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, A. (1967) “Practice of law as a confidence game.” Law and Society Rev. 1 (June): 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BREHM, J. W. and A. R., COHEN (1962) Exploration in Cognitive Dissonance. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (1964-68) Uniform Crime Reports (Minnesota). St. Paul.Google Scholar
CREW, R. (1967) [ed.] State Politics. San Francisco: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
DAWSON, R. and J. A., ROBINSON (1963) “Inter-party competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the American states.” J. of Politics 25 (May): 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEUTSCH, J. G. (1968) “Neutrality, legitimacy and the Supreme Court: some intersections between law and political science.” Stanford Law Rev. 20 (January): 169–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DYE, T. R. (1966) Politics, Economics, and the Public. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
EISENSTADT, S. N. (1957) Comparative Studies of Institutions. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
EYESTONE, R. (1968) “The life cycle of American public policies: agriculture and labor policy since 1929.” Presented at Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, May, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
FESTINGER, L. (1957) The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GORE, W. J. (1964) Administrative Decision-Making: A Heuristic Model. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
HOYT, J. S. (1968) Minnesota Economic Data: Counties and Regions. St. Paul: Univ. of Minnesota Department of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
HUGHES, E. (1958) Men and Their Work. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
JONES, C. P. (1967) Report and Accounting of the Minnesota State Public Defender. Minneapolis: Office of the State Public Defender.Google Scholar
KAMISAR, Y. and J. H., CHOPER (1963) “The right to counsel in Minnesota: some field findings and legal-policy observations.” Minnesota Law Rev. 48 (November): 1–117.Google Scholar
LINEBERRY, R. L. and E. P., FOWLER (1967) “Reformism and public policies in the American cities.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 61 (September): 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LOWI, T. J. (1964) “American government, 1933-1963: fission and confusion in theory and research,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 58 (September): 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUIR, W. K. (1967) Prayer and Public Schools: Law and Attitude Change. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
OAKS, D. H. and W., LEHMAN (1968) A Criminal Justice System and the Indigent. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Minnesota Supreme Court (1964-1968) Annual Reports on Minnesota Courts. St. Paul.Google Scholar
PACKER, H. (1966) “The courts, the police and the rest of us.” J. of Criminology, Criminal Law and Police Sci. 57 (September): 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACKER, H. (1964) “Two models of the criminal process.” Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 113 (November): 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAULSEN, M. G. (1961) The Problem of Assistance to the Indigent Accused. Philadelphia: Joint Committee of Amer. Law Institute and Amer. Bar Assn.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, J. (1968) Partners in Development: An Analysis of AID University Relations, 1960-1966. Minneapolis: Report for the Center for Comparative Studies in Technological Development and Social Change.Google Scholar
ROKEACH, M. (1966) “The nature of attitudes,” pp. 449-457 in Volume I, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
RYDER, N. (1965) “The concept of the cohort in the study of social change.” Amer. Soc. Rev. 30 (December): 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILVERSTEIN, L. (1965) Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts: The State Reports. Chicago: Amer. Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
SILVERSTEIN, L. (1964) Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts: A Preliminary Summary. Chicago: Amer. Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, J. H. (1967) “Social control in the adversary system.” J. of Conflict Resolution 11 (March): 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUDNOW, D. (1965) “Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defenders' office.” Social Problems 12 (Winter): 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1962 and 1967) County and City Data Books. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
VINES, K. (1965) “The role of the judiciary in America,” in Jacobs, H. and Vines, K. (eds.) Politics in the American States. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
WARRINER, C. K. (1961-1962) “Public opinion and collective action: formation of a watershed district.” Administrative Sci. Q. 6: 332–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YOUNG, P. (1966) Scientific Social Surveys and Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar