Columnist Jeff German: Taxpayers can’t afford this luxury

Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003 | 11 a.m.

The budget crunch has left the state struggling to pay for social programs to help seniors and poverty-stricken children.

But your state lawmakers are considering spending more taxpayer dollars to help accused killers defend themselves in court.

Go figure.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee opened hearings in Carson City this week on Assembly Bill 17, which would force judges who appoint a private lawyer to represent a first-degree murder defendant to also appoint an entire defense team.

Private lawyers are appointed when the public defender's office, which has its own budget to hire trial experts, can't take the defendant because it's representing either another defendant or a witness in the case.

The idea behind the bill is to ensure that murder defendants get consistent legal representation. But is the bill taking things too far?

District Court Administrator Chuck Short estimates that AB17, if passed in its current form, would add as much as $1 million to the county's annual $3 million indigent defense fund -- something county fiscal analysts aren't happy about.

The mandatory defense team outlined in AB17 would include two attorneys, an investigator, a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist, a mitigation specialist and any other experts approved by a court.

That covers just about everything an accused killer would want at trial -- except for maybe a tailor to ensure a dapper look in court and per diem expenses for catered lunches and dinners.

What in the heck is a mitigation specialist, anyway?

Special Public Defender Michael Pescetta, who's pushing AB17, says a mitigation specialist is someone adept at pointing out the best side of a defendant, primarily during the penalty phase of a trial.

But District Attorney David Roger says there is no such profession, and it's merely a ploy by the defense community to con the public into providing more money for murder defendants.

Call it a luxury, along with the rest of AB17, the taxpayers can't afford.

When you read the bill carefully, you'll find that it isn't even necessary.

The judges already have discretion to provide whatever resources a defendant needs for a proper defense.

If a defendant can show the necessity for more than one lawyer, an investigator or a psychiatrist, a judge can order the taxpayers to pay for it.

So why make these appointments mandatory and allow some defendants who don't need the extra resources to waste taxpayer money?

And where do we draw the line?

If we provide a mandatory defense team for accused killers, do we have an obligation to do the same thing for others accused of serious crimes?

What about accused rapists, kidnappers or habitual criminals?

It's all the more reason why AB17 makes no sense.

Like every criminal defendant, accused killers are entitled to a fair defense, but they're not entitled to break the bank doing it.