DEFENDANTS ALLEGE LAWYERS INADEQUATE

The right to a fair trial in front of a jury of one's peers is something
generally taken for granted in this country. But for those who cannot
afford their defense, that right can often seem like a far-off dream.

Many of the defendants in the Tulia drug cases say their right to a fair
trial was infringed upon by the appointment of inadequate attorneys, and a
recent study by a non-profit reform group indicates they may be right. At
least a dozen of the Tulia defendants contacted for this series said their
court-appointed attorneys did not represent them fairly. Complaints ranged
from a less-than-vigorous defense to the most common: applying pressure to
take plea bargains.

Laura Ann Mata, 23, wrote from prison in Gatesville, where she is serving a
five-year-sentence resulting from a plea bargain, that her attorney
pressured her to take the deal. Mata's Plainview attorney, Daniel Garcia,
refused to comment on the matter.

Other attorneys were willing to respond to the allegations, although they
refused to discuss specifics of their clients' cases because of
confidentiality concerns.

Amarillo attorney D'Layne Peeples represented two of the defendants in the
Tulia trials and said the accusations of poor representation are baseless
in her opinion.

"This is not exactly uncommon," Peeples said. "In cases where you don't
have anything to appeal on, where you don't have any legal errors, that's
the thing you fall back on, is saying you weren't represented fairly."

Peeples said the accusations about undue pressure to take a plea bargain
may have some legitimacy, however, but it is unlikely the pressure came
from attorneys.

"The pressure comes from what's been happening around them," Peeples said.
"When you see juries giving these long sentences to people who have never
had a conviction, you've got to tell your client about that. You've got to
tell them about how long a sentence they could get and what happened to the
people who went before them. I can see how that would be pressure, but as a
lawyer, you're obligated to give all the facts."

Amarillo attorney Van Williamson, who represented several people arrested
in the drug sting and was not one of the attorneys criticized by his
clients, said there may have been problems with representation. The
problems mostly stem from the individual lawyer, but the way attorneys are
retained and paid can play into it as well, Williamson said.

"There are a lot of good attorneys out there working hard for their clients
in court-appointed situations," Williamson said. "But you also have your
attorneys that are there for the paycheck, just like you do in any field.
Unfortunately, the system does not necessarily encourage those types of
attorneys to work hard for their clients."

Williamson, who handles numerous court-appointed cases, said the outcome
generally paying the most with the least work is a plea bargain, which can
lead to the lawyer putting undue pressure on the client to take a deal. A
dismissal of the case can take the most work and often pays the least,
which can discourage an attorney from spending a lot of time pursuing the
best result for his or her client.

These types of problems aren't unique to Swisher County, however. According
to a recent study conducted by the Texas Appleseed Fair Defense Project,
Texas has a number of weaknesses in its indigent defense system.

"I think the biggest problem in Texas is that Texas does not have any
single coherent indigent defense system," said Bill Beardall, the
Austin-based legal director of Texas Appleseed. "There are more than 800
inconsistent systems that are scattered among the 800-plus districts across
the state, with each court for the most part creating its own indigent
defense system. That results in wide variations in the quality of
representation, the quality of justice and the rules for appointing attorneys."

Texas Appleseed, a non-profit, non-partisan public-interest law center,
studied indigent defense in 23 counties large and small to determine what
weaknesses in the system need to be fixed.

Unlike many states, Texas does not provide state funding for indigent
defense, instead, leaving it up to the counties to pay for court-appointed
lawyers. According to the study, fees paid to attorneys vary widely among
counties and districts - flat fees for plea bargains ranged from $50 to
$350 - which can create varied qualities of representation.

District Judge Ed Self, who presided over the majority of the Tulia trials,
said the minimum fee for any felony case in Swisher County is $250,
although plea bargain cases may be paid more if extra work is required.

The study found Texas pays $4.65 per capita for indigent legal
representation, putting it near the bottom of all states in funding.

"The crap shoot is the right metaphor," Beardall said. "Getting
high-quality, good-quality representation is a crap shoot. It depends on
which court the case is assigned to and what ad-hoc rules the court has
decided to follow."

Texas also lacks standards for selecting which lawyers are allowed to work
on cases, often resulting in newer attorneys working on serious felony
cases they are not prepared for, according to the study.

The system may not be perfect, but it is good enough to ensure all the
defendants received fair representation in the Tulia trials, according to Self.

Self said he maintains a list of attorneys who receive cases on a rotating
basis. He monitors the attorneys' performances to make sure they are
performing up to snuff, and if they fail to do so, they are removed from
the list.

As far as funding, Self said he submits a budget every year to the County
Commission, which approves funds. But he is not limited to spending only
that amount. As an example, expenditures in Swisher County for
court-appointed attorneys jumped from $48,702 in 1999 to $75,611 in 2000
because of the heavy case load from the drug sting.

"I thought the representation from the court-appointed attorneys was good
in all the cases," Self said. "I am absolutely comfortable with my belief
that they were all treated fairly."