by Rick Stack
Money (or lack thereof) typically has a HUGE impact on any given defendant’s ability to obtain a satisfactory outcome in his or her criminal case. An indigent defendant is appointed a public defender (“PD”) who has a large caseload and few resources with which to hire investigators to 
visit and interview prospective witnesses and to review often voluminous discovery, in addition to hiring psychiatrists to explore possible mental defenses, and/or to hire expert witnesses such as eyewitness misidentification or crime reconstruction experts (note the slick computer-animated scene of Oscar Pistorius’ apartment that an IT/graphics designer prepared in his case).
Due to their heavy workloads and trial schedules, PDs often have a much greater incentive than a privately-retained counsel to plead out cases quickly rather than to engage in extensive back-and-forth plea negotiations. This is a systemic problem with public counsel representation and is not meant to disparage the ability and dedication of many PDs. Even if an indigent federal defendant is assigned a private attorney from the Federal Indigent Defense 
Panel, either because the defendant is part of a multi-defendant, case or the Federal PD is otherwise conflicted out, the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) offers paltry hourly reimbursement rates for private counsel — $126 for non-capital cases and $180 for capital cases. See http://fdwnc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CJA-HOURLY-RATES-Case-Maximums-updated-2014.pdf.
So, while the occasional millionaire or billionaire may receive a stiff criminal sentence, that is 
clearly the EXCEPTION rather than the rule. For every Bernie Madoff in prison for their criminal conduct which caused the greatest economic collapse since the 1930′s, nearly all other high-level financial miscreants evaded justice. How many Wall Street investment bankers or CEOs have been convicted and imprisoned for looting or similar offenses? How many bank executives were prosecuted for fleecing mortgagees and engaging in fraudulent robo-signing in connection with home loan foreclosures? We can probably count such prosecutions on one hand or, at most, two 
hands. In cases of corporate fraud, the usual “rule” is that the companies are required to pay a large fine (but nowhere near enough to materially affect their bottom-line profits) while the executives who authorized and approved the corporate criminality get off scot-free.
Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff addressed that topic in his long essay published last year in the New York Times Review of Books. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/25/1265127/-Why-No-Corporate-
CEOs-Were-Prosecuted-For-Causing-The-Financial-Crisis. Bill Moyers also addressed this problem in his expose detailing the lack of prosecutions in the most recent financial crash compared to the numerous bank CEOs who were imprisoned during the S&L crash of the 1980′s. See http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/.
So, in closing, to paraphrase George Orwell (Animal Farm), all people are created equal in the U.S. but those who are wealthy are “more equal” than others, especially in the criminal justice system.
Rick Stack is a Los Angeles-based tax lawyer working in the private sector. Prior to that, he worked for many years as a Federal Prosecutor in the Tax Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He resides in Los Angeles County and is interested in politics, civil rights, his family and the Chicago Bears. Rick is one of All Things Crime Blog’s earliest supporters and is known for his trenchant and unabashed comments.