Expert Services

We provide technical assistance that is tailored to the unique needs and requests in each jurisdiction. This ranges from staffing government task forces, to holding confidential one-on-one meetings, to testifying before legislatures when asked. We also educate the public through speaking engagements, our Pleading the Sixth blog, and sharing what we know about the right to counsel so you can help fix the issue.

Government Technical Assistance

Speaking Engagements

  • March 3, 2014

    Mississippi Supreme Court Task Force on Indigent Defense Jackson, Mississippi

    David Carroll, along with Mississippi State Public Defender Leslie Lee, presents “The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Findings & Recommendations.”
  • October 17, 2013

    Idaho Legislative Interim Committee on Indigent Defense Boise, Idaho

    David Carroll presents information to the Committee about “How States Structure Right to Counsel Services.”
  • August 15, 2013

    Idaho Legislative Interim Committee on Indigent Defense Boise, Idaho

    David Carroll discusses “The Right to Counsel: Constitutional Requirements, Standards & State Trends.”
  • May 1, 2013

    Michigan House Judiciary Committee Lansing, Michigan

    David Carroll provides testimony on “The Right to Counsel in Michigan 50 Years after Gideon.”
  • January 22, 2013

    Utah State Legislature Salt Lake City, Utah

    David Carroll makes his “Presentation before the President of the Utah Senate and the Speaker of the House.”
  • October 31, 2014

    University of Tennessee College of Law Knoxville, Tennessee

    Jon Mosher presents an “Overview of the National Right to Counsel” at the UT Right to Counsel Symposium. The presentation describes the well-documented and long-standing systemic deficiencies across the country stemming from inadequate funding and resources and explains political and funding reforms responding to the crisis in indigent criminal defense.
  • October 8, 2014

    New England School of Law Boston, Massachusetts

    David Carroll presents on “Gideon at 50: America’s Indigent Defense Crisis.”
  • August 7, 2014

    American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants and Criminal Justice Section Boston, Massachusetts

    David Carroll presents on “The Criminal Justice Act at 50.”
  • April 18, 2014

    National Association for Public Defense Lexington, Kentucky

    David Carroll presents “Public Defense Workload: The National Perspective” at the NAPD’s three-day Workload Leadership Institute.
  • March 18, 2014

    University of the District of Columbia Law School Washington, D.C.

    Jon Mosher participates on a panel discussion, “Gideon 2.0 – Guaranteeing Effective Assistance of Counsel.” The discussion follows a special screening of HBO Film’s Gideon’s Army. Fellow panelists include: Ed Burnette (moderator), National Legal Aid & Defender Association; Christopher Durocher, The Constitution Project; Jenny Roberts, American University-Washington College of Law; Santha Sonenberg, Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia.
  • March 18, 2014

    Boston University, School of Law Boston, Massachusetts

    David Carroll follows up 2013’s address at BU with another discussing the impact of systemic indigent defense deficiencies on wrongful convictions. Special emphasis is placed on undue political and judicial interference, and the use of United States v. Cronic to get at how systemic deficiencies prevent even the best lawyers from providing constitutionally effective right to counsel services.

While a criminal trial is not a game in which the participants are expected to enter the ring with a near match in skills, neither is it a sacrifice of unarmed prisoners to gladiators.

— United States v. Cronic (1984)

That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.

— Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

We reject … the premise that, since prosecutions for crimes punishable by imprisonment for less than six months may be tried without a jury, they may also be tried without a lawyer.

— Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)