reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s “constitutional responsibilities” and “inherent power” compelled the con- elusion that the practice of compulsory appointment of attorneys without providing adequate compensation amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s “constitutional responsibilities” and “inherent power” compelled the con- elusion that the practice of compulsory appointment of attorneys without providing adequate compensation amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property
- applauding pro bono legal representation, court nevertheless holds that "voluntary services are insufficient to accommodate the right of indigent citizens to the effective assistance of counsel"
- involuntarily appointed counsel entitled to reasonable overhead and out-of-pocket expenses plus an hourly rate "tied to the salary range paid to assistant district attorneys and the district attorneys” within the state, depending "on the attorney’s qualifications”
- "most even handed approach in setting fees is to tie the hourly rate of the counsel appointed for the indigent defendant to the hourly rate of the prosecutor/district attorney and the public defenders"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALMA WILSON,
Justice, concurring specially:
I applaud this Court’s extension of Bias v. State, 568 P.2d 1269 (Okla.1977) and write specially to express my preference for appointments of counsel for the indigent from pools of private attorneys, rather than extending the prohibitively expensive public defender system.