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

  • January 25, 2018

    Indiana Task Force on Public Defense, Sub-Committee of Delivery Models & Structure Indianapolis, Indiana

    Executive Director David Carroll works with sub-committee members as they debate potential statewide structures and models for the delivery of indigent defense. Topics include: the advantages and disadvantages of a statewide appellate defender; how some states regionalize the oversight of trial level indigent defense services; and methods states use to get counties to comply with statewide standards.
  • December 1, 2017

    Maine Work Group on Indigent Legal Services Augusta, Maine

    Maine’s task force continues to study how to achieve greater cost-certainty in providing state-funded indigent defense services. 6AC Executive Director David Carroll and Staff Counsel Mike Tartaglia provide technical assistance to the task force, explaining how other states balance the need to ensure effective representation and the desire for cost efficiency.
  • November 17, 2017

    Maine Work Group on Indigent Legal Services Augusta, Maine

    Maine’s legislature created a task force to examine how its indigent defense services can be provided with greater cost certainty. 6AC Executive Director David Carroll and Staff Counsel Mike Tartaglia explain the importance of oversight and accountability in a state-funded system where private attorneys bill hourly for providing representation to indigent people.
  • November 10, 2017

    Indiana Task Force on Public Defense Indianapolis, Indiana

    6AC Executive Director David Carroll addresses the task force members about the findings and recommendations in 6AC’s report, The Right to Counsel in Indiana: Evaluation of Trial Level Indigent Defense Services. He explains how the model Indiana currently uses to provide public defense representation legitimizes and institutionalizes the choices made by some counties to not meet the constitutional requirements for providing effective representation. Carroll also guides the task force members in examining models used in other states to deliver Sixth Amendment services.
  • April 10, 2017

    Tennessee Supreme Court, Indigent Representation Task Force Nashville, Tennessee

    The Tennessee Supreme Court Indigent Representation Task Force releases its report, fulfilling its charge to determine how the state can deliver the right to counsel in a more efficient manner. 6AC Executive Director David Carroll participates in the press conference, following on 6AC’s provision of technical assistance to the Task Force supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
  • April 5, 2017

    Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee Carson City, Nevada

    The Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a bill to create a statewide Right to Counsel Commission. On written request of Senator Segerblom, chair of the Committee, 6AC Executive Director David Carroll provides technical assistance to the committee, explaining Nevada’s unique right to counsel history and the current deficiencies in providing indigent defense services in rural counties.
  • December 16, 2016

    Indiana Press Conference at the Capitol Rotunda Indianapolis, Indiana

    Beginning in the 1990s, the “Indiana Model” for providing public defense services was widely promoted as potentially the best way to improve the provision of the right to counsel in states throughout America. 6AC Executive Director David Carroll discusses how and why the system legitimizes and institutionalizes the choice of counties to not meet the constitutional parameters of effective representation, as detailed in the Sixth Amendment Center report released in October 2016.
  • October 25, 2016

    U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Right to Counsel National Campaign Washington, DC

    Executive Director David Carroll co-moderates, along with Colette Tvedt of NACDL, a roundtable discussion on “Securing a Meaningful Right to Counsel: Perspectives on State Reforms.”David Carroll moderates at R2C 2nd annual meeting The panel discusses how best to identify and overcome deficiencies in indigent defense systems, using legislation, litigation, and public education approaches, as considered from the vantage of different types of stakeholders including judges, state legislators, and public defense providers. Topics include: a) Utah’s consensus approach to reform and the advancement of evaluation standards; b) Idaho’s recent legislative reforms and why conservatives are in the forefront of advancing the right to counsel; c) federal litigation in Washington State and the role of the U.S. Department of Justice; d) excessive caseloads of public defenders in Missouri and launching a media strike; and, e) the future of the right to counsel in New York. Panelists are: Derek P. Pullan, Utah Fourth District Judge; Christine Perry, Idaho State Representative; Michael Barrett, Missouri State Public Defender; Eileen Farley, Public Defender Supervisor for the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington (Washington); Corey Stoughton, Senior Counsel at the USDOJ Civil Rights Division; and William Leahy, Director, New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services.
  • October 24, 2016

    Columbia University, Columbia Law School New York, New York

    Deputy Director Jon Mosher presents the “Indigent Defense State of the Nation” to a criminal adjudication class of 150 LL.M. and third-year law students. The presentation highlights the current problems in providing the right to counsel in Indiana, Utah, Louisiana, Missouri, and Nevada, as indicative of indigent defense deficiencies throughout the country.
  • July 6, 2016

    KABF Radio, It Could Be You Little Rock, Arkansas

    Host John Sarna interviews 6AC Executive Director David Carroll for an hour on the state of the right to counsel in America and in Arkansas specifically. Topics include the absence of counsel in state misdemeanor courts and the appointment of counsel in name only in felony courts.
  • June 16, 2016

    Right to Counsel National Campaign at American University, One-Hour Webinar By videoconference

    In an effort to inform and engage policymakers, criminal justice stakeholders, and the community on the importance of meaningfully carrying out the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Right to Counsel National Campaign at American University, within the Justice Programs Office, hosts a quarterly webinar covering an array of Sixth Amendment related topics. 6AC Executive Director David Carroll presents a comprehensive overview of right to counsel legislation in the states from the most recent legislative sessions.
  • May 20, 2016

    Council of State Governments – West Salt Lake City, Utah

    The Council of State Governments West supports legislative coordination amongst 13 western states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) and three territories (American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam). 6AC Executive Director David Carroll presents a history of the right to counsel in the West while exploring pending systemic concerns and recent legislative victories.

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)