Criminal defendants are being held without lawyers in Mass. as bar advocates refuse new cases
In a statement Monday evening, the association said the growing number of unrepresented people in Massachusetts, which it says has grown to exceed 240 in just Boston and Middlesex County, represents a crisis.
As of last week, roughly 40 people in Boston were being held in custody without a lawyer, and more than 150 were unrepresented, the association said. In Middlesex County, which includes Cambridge, 16 people are being held without lawyers and 90 people accused of crimes are awaiting a court-appointed attorney, according to the statement.
Read more: A right to an attorney? Court-appointed lawyers are refusing cases in Mass. over low pay
It was not immediately clear what the statewide totals were, but the association indicated there are 'many others who remain locked in custody with no one as their voice.'
The association's president, Shira Diner, said the numbers reflected a 'full-blown constitutional breakdown.'
'The right to counsel is not a luxury. It is a bedrock principle of our justice system, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and by Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights,' Diner said. 'When people are jailed without lawyers, the system ceases to be just — or constitutional.'
Bar advocates are independent defense attorneys who represent those who can not afford lawyers. They are not part of the state's public defender agency, the Committee for Public Counsel Services.
Those attorneys have been refusing to take on new cases amid a pay dispute. The association says bar advocates in Massachusetts are paid far less than those in neighboring states.
'The unsustainable pay structure has led to an exodus of experienced attorneys and an inability to recruit new ones — with the result that hundreds of accused individuals find themselves in legal limbo," the association wrote in a statement.
Read more: Bar advocate revolt over low pay expected to balloon across the state
Anyone in custody for more than seven days without representation can be released under state law. If a lawyer is not assigned in that timeframe, courts are either forced to violate a person's constitutional right to an attorney or release them without due process, the association said.
'People accused of crimes are sitting in jail cells without a lawyer,' Diner continued. 'Others are missing crucial opportunities to gather necessary evidence and are left with nothing but uncertainty.'
A spokesperson for the trial courts said the state's court system has been 'in communication' with CPCS 'in an effort to reduce disruptions due to the work stoppage by Bar Advocates.'
Bar advocates handle about 80% of criminal cases for defendants who can't afford attorneys in Massachusetts courts.
Mass. weather: Central Mass. could see over 1 inch of rain on Tuesday
Some Nantucket short-term rentals in jeopardy after land court decision
Big Y plans changes to its Tower Square store
Mass. labor groups rally against ICE arrest of California union leader
Driver taken to hospital after truck crashes into telephone pole in Belchertown
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
‘How do you negotiate with that?' Mass. lawmakers cut a proposed pay hike for court-appointed attorneys amid work stoppage.
Advertisement 'It doesn't give bar advocates confidence that [lawmakers] appreciate the crisis that is going on,' said Jennifer O'Brien, a criminal defense attorney in Billerica who is among those who've stopped taking bar advocate cases. 'We definitely want to go back to work. We want a resolution. But when you get zero raises, how do you negotiate with that?' The work stoppage that began May 27 has hit Suffolk and Middlesex counties the hardest, but lawyers say it has spread to courthouses elsewhere. As of Monday, more than 1,460 defendants — including 107 who are in custody — didn't have counsel across the state, according to a count provided by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state's public defenders office. That included a Boston Police Department sergeant who was Advertisement CPCS has The bar advocates who work in district courts, the base level of the criminal court system, are paid $65 an hour. In superior court, where most felonies are prosecuted, they make $85. Attorneys who handle homicide cases make $120 an hour. In comparison, in Rhode Island, which this year increased its pay, court-appointed lawyers for most cases make $112 an hour. In New Hampshire, court-appointed attorneys make $125 or $150 an hour, and in Maine, it's $150 across the board. The proposal that Massachusetts lawmakers ultimately cut from the budget offered more modest changes than what attorneys in Massachusetts had sought. The measure, which passed the Senate last month, would have raised the rates for those working in superior court and taking appointments for mental-health matters. Those handling homicide cases would have their hourly rates increase, too, from $120 to $130. But lawmakers ultimately dropped it from the budget plan amid closed-door negotiations between House and Senate leaders. That change alone likely would not have brought many attorneys back to courthouses, but it would have been a 'step in the right direction,' said Mara Dolan, a member of the Governor's Council who also serves as a defense attorney. Advertisement Instead, she said, 'we've had no step at all. Any positive indicator would have helped. But are there folks who would not come back unless there was a substantial raise? Absolutely.' Senate President Karen E. Spilka said Monday that legislative leaders ultimately cut several proposals, including hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, that they had approved in their earlier budget plans. The Ashland Democrat said the spending plan still includes money to cover the bar advocates' current rates — 'They are getting paid for their cases,' she said — but she acknowledged this was a 'tough budget.' 'Hard decisions had to be made,' Spilka said. 'But I look forward to talking to the bar advocates directly to hear what their issues are.' Lisa Hewitt, general counsel for CPCS, told staff in an e-mail Monday that while lawmakers didn't adopt the language, leaders at the public defender's office believe lawmakers are paying attention to the crisis 'and will take action.' That said, the budget plan included other disappointing news for the agency, she wrote. Lawmakers approved giving CPCS $89 million for its operations, which is 'well below our requested maintenance level,' Hewitt wrote. The agency also received about $25 million to cover costs for representing indigent clients and $213.8 million to pay private attorneys, both of which fall below the office's projected spending for the year, she said. 'Without additional legislative action, these appropriation levels will have serious consequences for both staff and private bar compensation and will impact all components of our legal services delivery system,' Hewitt wrote. Advertisement For now, attorneys are hoping the SJC will take action to provide a temporary increase for bar advocates. CPCS asked the court to set 'a reasonable rate,' pointing to the hourly rates in Maine and New Hampshire. That so many defendants currently have no lawyer at all 'is crazy,' said Daniel Cappetta, a lawyer who sits on the board for the Middlesex Defense Attorneys, which administers defense attorneys for indigent clients in the county. 'There doesn't feel like there's an end in sight,' he said. 'We've done everything we can to recruit attorneys . . . who will take this work at the current pay rates. That's just not happening.' Matt Stout can be reached at
Newsweek
19-06-2025
- Newsweek
Open the Immigration Courtroom—Justice Can't Be Done in the Dark
As Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex-trafficking and racketeering trial enters its sixth week, Americans are getting a front-row seat to justice in action. Thanks to media access inside the courtroom, trial coverage dominates headlines and social media platforms like TikTok. But while America scrutinizes one man's reckoning in real time, thousands of other people with just as much at stake remain invisible. That's because immigration courtrooms, where non-citizens petition for legal status to stop deportation, are closed to the public. This lack of visibility isn't due to public disinterest. It's by design. The interior of the Minnesota Supreme Court is pictured. The interior of the Minnesota Supreme Court is pictured. Getty Images As a former assistant chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I spent over a decade litigating cases in closed-door proceedings. During our training, we're told that immigration courts are closed to protect the safety of a person seeking relief. But after years as a prosecutor, I've come to see things differently: secrecy doesn't protect immigrants—it protects the system. To achieve proper accountability and transparency from the government, as is the public's right under the First Amendment, it's time to open the courtroom doors. Visibility––however uncomfortable for the judges, prosecutors, and the parties involved–– is what the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to a public criminal trial requires. Though civil, immigration courts shouldn't be exempt from basic principles of transparency. Oversight enables public debates like those surrounding Cassie's testimony in Diddy's trial. Meanwhile, immigration courts operate like black boxes, largely immune to scrutiny. The closed nature of immigration courts, classified as civil, is not required by law. While some proceedings, such as bond proceedings and initial masters, are technically open to the public, immigration judges have near-total discretion to close them. And they often do, as in Mahmoud Khalil's case, where the court disabled video links and phone access, citing procedural reasons such as reserving access only for parties and witnesses, not the press or public. Invisible courtrooms allow systemic failures to go unchecked. Take the case of Ximena Arias-Cristobal, a 19-year-old college student, arrested in Dalton, Ga., on May 5, for allegedly running a red light. Local police later admitted she hadn't. But by then, Ximena had already been handed over to ICE, transferred to Stewart Detention Center, detained for 16 days, and placed into removal proceedings. Her place of birth—not her actions—determined her fate. A closed removal hearing meant observers couldn't question how racial profiling enabled her arrest or how ICE capitalizes on its use. In a system where justice operates like a two-way mirror, the government sees everything, and the public only sees what it's allowed to. Invisibility also facilitates the coordinated betrayal of due process. In late May, asylum seekers in Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and Chicago appeared for their hearings. They placed their trust in the legal system, hoping that the harm they suffered would be considered with the dignity and fairness the law promises. Instead, judges, cloaked in the illusion of neutrality, granted the government's motion to dismiss case after case without testimony or review, fully aware that ICE agents waited outside with handcuffs. Once dismissed, the government was free to detain and deport immediately. And with the public barred from observing, no one saw that what was presented as "justice" felt more like a sting operation. Some argue that closing immigration courts protects applicants who are fleeing persecution, from retaliation or public trauma. But if this system was truly designed to protect the vulnerable, it wouldn't have terminated nearly 30 immigration judges without cause, sending a chilling message to those who remain. Nor would it need to hide behind closed doors to obscure its 76 percent denial rate in March 2025 alone. The message is clear: immigration courts aren't protecting dignity. They protect discretion, unchecked power, and this administration's enforcement priorities. To achieve accountability, we need transparency. In the Diddy trial, prosecution star witness Cassie did not derive her strength from silence; it came from speaking out. Her willingness to expose painful chapters of her life forced the public to confront the systems of power that enable abuse. But Mahmoud Khalil and others in immigration court aren't afforded that exposure. Their fight for justice plays offstage, unheard and unseen. If the public could witness what happens inside immigration courts, perhaps then, instead of debating open borders or legal loopholes, we'd begin to understand what is at stake. Organizations like the American Bar Association have begun court awareness projects to let the public in. Until immigration courts are opened to the public, justice will not be reimagined. Veronica Cardenas is an immigration attorney, former assistant chief counsel with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and founder of Humanigration. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Lori Vallow Daybell found guilty in 3rd trial
Lori Vallow Daybell was found guilty on Thursday in her second murder conspiracy trial in Arizona. The jury concluded Vallow Daybell conspired to kill Brandon Boudreaux, her niece's ex-husband. Vallow Daybell, who represented herself, pleaded not guilty. This marks her third trial in recent years. Earlier in spring, she was found guilty of conspiring to murder her estranged husband, Charles Vallow, in Arizona. She awaits sentencing for this trial. Vallow Daybell was also convicted in Idaho for killing her children — Tylee and JJ — and Tammy Daybell, her husband Chad Daybell's first wife in Idaho. She is serving several life sentences without the possibility of parole. Despite a shaky start to the trial last Friday, when Vallow Daybell appeared in court in a wheelchair and asked the judge for more time, the proceedings ended this week. She ran into a confrontation with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Justin Beresky in court on Friday. Vallow Daybell wanted the judge to allow the inclusion of character evidence but the judge told her that could leave the door open for the prosecution to include evidence of her prior convictions. The judge advised her to consult her advisory council during the lunch break. 'You don't need to yell at me,' Vallow Daybell responded. After a brief back and forth, where the judge stressed he didn't raise his voice, he ordered Vallow Daybell to be escorted out of the courtroom. She argued she'd been 'very courteous' to Beresky. The judge didn't take to her remark too kindly, saying, 'No, you have been nothing near courteous to me during the course of these proceedings.' She apologized to Beresky 15 minutes later. The judge offered her a warning: another slip up and he could revoke her right to represent herself. In addition to juggling the Arizona trial, Vallow Daybell is also attempting to file an appeal in Idaho, where she is serving several life sentences. 'Lori Daybell respectfully asks this Court to reverse her judgment of conviction and remand for an order dismissing all charges against her based on a violation of her statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial,' the brief, filed May 30, states, according to KTVB 7. Her attorney argued the court disqualified her chosen attorney, violating her Sixth Amendment.
