147, 158 (App. Div. 1989); N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-5 and
N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-1 et seq. To receive such “other
services” defendant must be determined to be indigent
and the facts of the case must warrant the special services.
State v. Manning, 234 N.J. Super. at 160-62.
An indigent defendant in a capital case is entitled to
the service of an expert psychiatrist to contest the issue of
his sanity at trial and also as an aid during the sentencing
of a capital case. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct.
1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).
The Public Defender Office has the authority to
determine the amount of compensation to be made
available for ancillary services to a defendant it is not
representing. N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-5; Matter of Cannady,
126 N.J. at 493-95 (describes procedure for making
application for funding, and criteria used to determine if
service will be compensated); State v. Cantalupo, 187 N.J.
Super. 113 (App. Div. 1982), certif. denied, 93 N.J. 274
(1983).
G. Limitations on Services Provided by the Public
Defender
Indigent defendants are not entitled to benefits
more favorable than those which a nonindigent could
afford. See, State v. Cantalupo, 187 N.J. Super. 113. In
this case, the court held that the Public Defender was not
required to produce, at its own cost and expense, out-of-
state alibi witnesses, absent defendant’s showing of
necessity in connection with these witnesses. Defendant
neither provided the names of the alibi witnesses nor
made a proffer of their anticipated testimony in order to
demonstrate the essential value of it. Without such a
proffer, the trial court could not balance the competing
interests involved: the expense the public would bear
versus the value of the testimony of the witness.
A court may not require the Public Defender to
assign new counsel to a defendant who was dissatisfied
with the attorney assigned to represent him, absent a
showing of “substantial cause.” State v. Lowery, 49 N.J.
476, 489-90 (1967); see, State v. Smith, 43 N.J. 67, 72
(1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1005, 85 S.Ct. 731, 13
L.Ed.2d 706, reh’g denied, 380 U.S. 938, 85 S.Ct. 945,
13 L.Ed.2d 826 (1965); State v. Coon, 314 N.J. Super.
426, 438 (App. Div. 1998); State v. Wiggins, 158 N.J.
Super. 27, 34 (App. Div. 1978); State v. Reddy, 137 N.J.
Super. 32 (App. Div. 1975) (where defendants who had
been represented by public defenders for a considerable
period of time applied two weeks before trial for a
continuance of suppression hearing in order to obtain
private counsel, denial of application was a proper
exercise of discretion); State v. Ferguson, 198 N.J. Super.
395 (App. Div. 1985). Disagreement over defense
strategy does not rise to the level of good cause or
substantial cause. State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 518
(1992). Defendant is not entitled to a “meaningful
relationship” with his attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461
U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983).Additionally, an indigent criminal defendant is not
entitled to compel his appointed counsel to raise and
argue on appeal every nonfrivolous issue which defendant
wants raised, but which appellate counsel in the exercise
of his professional judgment declines to present. Jones v.
Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d. 987
(1983).Furthermore, an indigent defendant cannot refuse to
represent himself and at the same time reject the services
of the Public Defender. A defendant must be provided
with counsel but has no right to select counsel who will
completely satisfy his fancy as to how he is to be
represented. State v. McCombs, 171 N.J. Super. 161
(App. Div. 1978), aff’d 81 N.J. 373 (1979). See, State v.
Kordower, 229 N.J. Super. 566, 576 (App. Div. 1989).H. Misconduct by Public DefendersIn Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S.Ct. 2820,
81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984), the Supreme Court held that
public defenders were not immune from liability in
actions brought by a criminal defendant against state
public defenders who are alleged to have conspired with
state officials to deprive the plaintiff of federal
constitutional rights. In this case, an Oregon prisoner
brought an action for punitive damages under federal law
against an Oregon public defender who represented him
at one of his trials and against another Oregon public
defender who represented him on appeal from that and
another conviction. The action alleged that the public
defenders conspired with various state officials, including
the trial and appellate judges to secure the prisoner’s
conviction.Furthermore, federal law does not provide attorneys
appointed to represent indigents in federal criminal trials
with absolute immunity from malpractice suits filed by
their clients in the state courts. Ferri v. Ackerman, 444
U.S. 193, 100 S.Ct. 402, 62 L.Ed. 355 (1979). The
Supreme Court held in Ferri v. Ackerman that state courts
are free to determine whether state law provides for such
immunity in state causes of action.