We wrote last week about a Vermont newspaper editorial critical of Howard Dean's view of indigent defense and criminal defendants while he was Governor of Vermont. We were hoping he would address this on his blog and debunk the charge. We haven't seen any response. But we did receive this from a lawyer whose integrity we trust and who was a former public defender in Vermont.

I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

To his credit he appointed Robert Appel to the post of Defender General (Public Defender in charge of the state system.) Then he refused to reappoint Appel apparently because Robert was most effective on the shoestring budget he was given.

Dean, despite his present self proclaimed environmental advocate status, was fairly hostile to environmental concerns while Governor. Dean repeatedly appointed pro business, non environmentally sensitive people to the Environmental Board. In Dean's logic, any business that would provide a half dozen minimal wage jobs could do what they wanted to the environment. When I returned to New Jersey, I could observe that the only real difference between N.J. and VT environmentally (at least under Dean) was that VT had 7.5 million less residents.

Of course in a battle between Dean and Bush ....

When I asked this attorney if I could print his comments, he agreed, but asked to be referred to simply as a "former Vermont public defender." We are honoring his request. In his reply, he added,

Inasmuch as I fear Bush more than I distrust Dean, I would still probably vote for Dean if it came to a showdown. By the way, [one of my clients was accused] of arson murder. When my statewide boss said he didn't have the money for experts, I moved to dismiss arguing that it matters little which arm of the state was denying my client due process and effective assistance. The trial court ordered the experts, my boss appealed. The VT supremes ordered my boss to give me what I needed and to essentially rob peter to pay paul with his budget. My client was acquitted after an hour and one half of deliberation.

We are not trying to diss Dr. Dean. If he gets the nomination, he'll be our new best friend and we'll actively seek his election. But indigent defense is an issue near and dear to us, and we'd like to know if he thinks the criticism leveled at him is unfair, or if he thinks it was fair at the time but he's had a change of heart, or if it was fair then and remains fair today.