This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant’s constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant’s attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Every state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Nevada is failing to fulfill this obligation for low income people in its rural counties on a daily basis. Many of these underfunded rural counties lack a true public defense system, and instead mainly rely on flat-fee or defacto flat fee contract attorneys to act as public defenders. These contract attorneys operate without the oversight, resources, or time necessary to ensure they are providing an adequate defense to low income Nevadans. In fact, very often they fail to communicate with clients in basic ways, advocate effectively for pretrial release at bail hearings, or conduct independent investigations necessary to defend their clients. Worse, they at times pressure clients into taking plea bargains against the clients’ express wishes. This is not justice.

In South Carolina’s municipal courts today, defendants are prosecuted, convicted, and jailed without ever having a lawyer appointed to their case or even being advised of their right to counsel. Hundreds of these defendants who were deprived of counsel—including Tina Bairefoot, Dae’Quandrea Nelson, and Nathan Fox—have been and are incarcerated in local jails and state prisons every year. Cities and towns can decide whether they have municipal courts—they are optional—but if they decide to have them they must follow the Constitution, which includes the right to counsel.