Well, at least that's the title of this Fresno Bee, 8/11/11 piece on Judge Ishii's decision to appoint an attorney for Fresno police sergeant Michael Manfredi in U.S. v. Coleman, et. al., No. 10-417-AWI, the federal excessive force civil rights prosecution against Manfredi and three former police officers. See U.S. v. Coleman posts. Here's the opening paragraphs of the Bee's story:
Taxpayers will foot a good chunk of the legal bill for a Fresno police sergeant who is facing federal civil rights charges stemming from a violent 2005 confrontation -- even though the defendant has a gross household income of more than $167,000 per year.
A Fresno federal judge reversed himself this week and allowed Michael Manfredi to have a public defender -- after Manfredi agreed to pay $800 a month toward his legal expenses. The decision, one legal expert said, was unusual because Manfredi is employed and making good money, and because middle-class people such as he is seldom face such serious criminal charges.
The title and the Bee article appear somewhat misleading to me. Given the high costs of preparing a full defense in a complicated federal case, it is not uncommon for even persons with a steady income and some assets to be unable to pay the hefty up-front retainer required to hire any reasonably-competent federal criminal defense attorney. In these situations, courts often appoint an attorney with the condition that the defendant reimburse the CJA fund at the conclusion of the case. I wasn't at the hearing when the court appointed counsel, but I'm assuming that in addition to the $800 monthly fees, Judge Ishii made Manfredi potentially subject to reimbursement for the remaining costs after a reassessment of his financial situation at the end of the case. If that's the case, requiring Manfredi to pay almost $10,000/year in legal fees and still be on the hook for the rest at the conclusion of the case seems a reasonable accommodation that will provide adequate representation without requiring taxpayers to "foot the bill."
