You're forgetting that she only briefly knew the guy and was scared that there was a chance it was drugs. She took the plea bargain instead of taking the chance on this guy. Even if she had the information she would still be taking a gamble not taking it. The author brought our attention to this practice because they think it's wrong. They didn't propose a solution but you really think they just brought it up for some light reading ? It should bother you that this is how your justice system works and it should make people want change. IMO the author underestimated the apathy of Americans. This isn't the only way your justice system can screw you over and knowing about this one thing won't protect you. This is just one of the many ways poor people get screwed by the system because those court appointed attorneys don't have time to give a shit. You can't possible know ever single way to be screwed over and that's why you have a lawyer. That's their job.
No, I'm not forgetting that the test could show a positive result. From a previous comment I made. My suggestion was to request a lab test, NOT to reject the plea bargain. If the plea bargain was contingent on not getting a lab test, she might still have grounds to sue since she wouldn't have been able to defend herself at a trial without that evidence. Maybe the Americans are too busy with their multiple minimum wage jobs to fight the system. It's also quite likely that there isn't a simple solution to this problem. If roadside tests are eliminated, that defaults judgment back to police officers at the scene. That's a more biased and fallible system. If all roadside tests are double-tested with lab tests, that adds expense and time to the system. It's possible that a solution might be to inform anyone who is making a plea bargain decision that they have a right to a lab test. It's likely that someone will need to sue to get that put into practice. In order for someone to sue, they would need to have been affected. In order to have been affected, they would have needed to have requested a test, been denied and been negatively affected. Maybe the author wanted someone reading the article to become the first test case to change the system by taking my moral of the story to heart. Putting aside what I should be bothered by, why are you bothered by a flaw in a justice system that you're not subject to? From a previous comment I made. In this case, since the woman is already in the hypotherical position using her as an example, as you've noted, the court appointed attorney might not have time and she might not have the money for another attorney, it would help her if she knew she could ask for a lab test that could exonerate her.You're forgetting that she only briefly knew the guy and was scared that there was a chance it was drugs. She took the plea bargain instead of taking the chance on this guy. Even if she had the information she would still be taking a gamble not taking it.
However, in this particular case, there's no other evidence except a roadside drug test that has been deemed inadmissible as the sole evidence for conviction at a trial. If there was a lab test that corroborated that roadside drug test, that's a different thing. My only point was that if she had known that, she could have gotten a lab test before she made her decision to accept the plea bargain or not.
The author brought our attention to this practice because they think it's wrong. They didn't propose a solution but you really think they just brought it up for some light reading ? It should bother you that this is how your justice system works and it should make people want change. IMO the author underestimated the apathy of Americans.
This isn't the only way your justice system can screw you over and knowing about this one thing won't protect you. This is just one of the many ways poor people get screwed by the system because those court appointed attorneys don't have time to give a shit. You can't possible know ever single way to be screwed over and that's why you have a lawyer. That's their job.
As to the rest of your comments about how the justice system should be set up to be more egalitarian, that sounds very idealistic. In capitalist countries (or life in general really), the wealthy often have more advantages.
There's no guarantee that the same deal would still be on the table after the drug test, especially if it's positive and strengthens the prosecutions case. It's to expensive to make sure innocent people (as in the government has no actual evidence you committed a crime) aren't going to trial or prison ? There is really no surprise America has the highest level of incarceration in the developed world. Your government gathering legitimate evidence against you before charging you with a crime shouldn't be something that's to expensive to do. It should be the baseline. This isn't about being in an egalitarian society, the right to counsel is in the sixth amendment but everybody is to busy fussing over the 1st and 2nd I guess they haven't got that far yet. Or quite frankly don't care that the counsel people recive is insufficient because they never see themselves in that position. It's not that the court appointed attorney "might not have time" it's that he didn't. Watch the episode I told you about and you'll understand that if you ever need one they won't have time either.
I went back to read the article and found that I missed a couple things in the article. She actually didn't have to ask for a lab test. They offered one to her, if her court appointed lawyer is to be believed. He says that the prosecutors offered her deferred adjudication, which would have allowed her to get the lab test and might have allowed her to decide on the plea bargain outside of jail. The woman in the case has already done what I would have suggested which is to consult an attorney to bring legal action against the court appointed attorney and/or the government. Other people have already asserted their rights and sued based on inaccurate field tests. It's expensive both on the part of the government but also on the part of the accused. The high rates of incarceration in the US has a much broader history than this case and really isn't much related. The woman in the article had both court appointed counsel and separate legal counsel to help her with her exoneration and to seek redress against her court appointed counsel if necessary. Despite your predictions, she was able to obtain legal counsel on her budget with the time available to her.There's no guarantee that the same deal would still be on the table after the drug test, especially if it's positive and strengthens the prosecutions case.
In fact, Richardson, Albritton's original court-appointed lawyer, says the prosecutor offered her a deferred adjudication, in which she may have been able to wait for the results of a lab test outside the walls of a jail cell. Richardson, who first said he had no memory of their conversations, says he told her about the offer but she refused it. Albritton says she has never heard of anything called deferred adjudication. Neither could explain what actually happened.
People plead guilty when they’re innocent because they see no alternative. People who have just been arrested usually don’t know their options, or even that they have an option. “There’s a fail-safe in there, and it’s called the defense lawyer,” says Rick Werstein, the attorney now representing Albritton as she seeks to finalize her exoneration. Defense lawyers can demand a lab analysis, and they exist to help defendants navigate the consequences of the jail time while they wait, even as they explain the even higher costs of a felony conviction. They are fully authorized to pursue alternative deals.
So far, we have been unable find anyone who pleaded guilty based on field-test results and later filed suit, though Werstein said he and Albritton are considering their additional legal options.
In the past three years, people arrested based on false-positive field tests have filed civil lawsuits in Sullivan County, Tenn.; Lehigh County, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; and San Diego, Calif. Three of the four cases also named the manufacturers Safariland Group or Sirchie as defendants. Three of the cases have already been settled.
It's to expensive to make sure innocent people (as in the government has no actual evidence you committed a crime) aren't going to trial or prison ? There is really no surprise America has the highest level of incarceration in the developed world. Your government gathering legitimate evidence against you before charging you with a crime shouldn't be something that's to expensive to do. It should be the baseline.
The labs issue reports in about two weeks, but defendants typically wait three weeks before they can see a judge — enough time to lose a job, lose an apartment, lose everything.
This isn't about being in an egalitarian society, the right to counsel is in the sixth amendment but everybody is to busy fussing over the 1st and 2nd I guess they haven't got that far yet. Or quite frankly don't care that the counsel people recive is insufficient because they never see themselves in that position. It's not that the court appointed attorney "might not have time" it's that he didn't. Watch the episode I told you about and you'll understand that if you ever need one they won't have time either.