flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,792
Here's some information regarding the listed attorney changes for Mechele's defense:
It appears that the Office of Public Advocacy is taking over this case perhaps. One reason which may be the case is explained below (copied from their site): http://doa.alaska.gov/opa/home.html
"Representing Adults in Criminal Cases
In cases where the Public Defender Agency has a conflict, the Office of Public Advocacy represents adults in criminal cases. An adult is entitled to a court-appointed attorney through OPA if he or she cannot afford to hire an attorney. The court determines if a person lacks sufficient income and assets to hire an attorney. If OPA has a conflict, the agency will assign a contract attorney to represent the person. If you have a question regarding the name of the attorney appointed in a particular case, please call one of our regional offices or the Anchorage Criminal Section direct line at 269-3552."
Perhaps there is a conflict with the public defender's office because they are representing someone else involved in this case, such as a witness?
More information from their site:
"A legal conflict can exist for a variety of reasons. One common type of legal conflict is that the same agency cannot represent co-defendants in the same case or a defendant and a witness. For example, if the state alleges that two or more people have committed a crime together and both co-defendants qualify for court appointed attorneys, the Public Defender Agency would be appointed for one of the defendants and OPA for the other."
So maybe the inmate who has come forth with alleged relevant information is being represented by the Public Defender's office and that causes a conflict? I'm wondering how they decide who has to go through the public advocacy offices and who gets to keep the public defender....maybe whoever had the public defender first? That may make sense since Mechele was only recently declared indigent and began working with the Public Defender's office.
On another note, Mechele's new trial was originally stated in the docket as beginning last week. Not surprisingly, it has been pushed back and is now listed as being scheduled for early January. Of course, that date could change again.
It appears that the Office of Public Advocacy is taking over this case perhaps. One reason which may be the case is explained below (copied from their site): http://doa.alaska.gov/opa/home.html
"Representing Adults in Criminal Cases
In cases where the Public Defender Agency has a conflict, the Office of Public Advocacy represents adults in criminal cases. An adult is entitled to a court-appointed attorney through OPA if he or she cannot afford to hire an attorney. The court determines if a person lacks sufficient income and assets to hire an attorney. If OPA has a conflict, the agency will assign a contract attorney to represent the person. If you have a question regarding the name of the attorney appointed in a particular case, please call one of our regional offices or the Anchorage Criminal Section direct line at 269-3552."
Perhaps there is a conflict with the public defender's office because they are representing someone else involved in this case, such as a witness?
More information from their site:
"A legal conflict can exist for a variety of reasons. One common type of legal conflict is that the same agency cannot represent co-defendants in the same case or a defendant and a witness. For example, if the state alleges that two or more people have committed a crime together and both co-defendants qualify for court appointed attorneys, the Public Defender Agency would be appointed for one of the defendants and OPA for the other."
So maybe the inmate who has come forth with alleged relevant information is being represented by the Public Defender's office and that causes a conflict? I'm wondering how they decide who has to go through the public advocacy offices and who gets to keep the public defender....maybe whoever had the public defender first? That may make sense since Mechele was only recently declared indigent and began working with the Public Defender's office.
On another note, Mechele's new trial was originally stated in the docket as beginning last week. Not surprisingly, it has been pushed back and is now listed as being scheduled for early January. Of course, that date could change again.