Particularly disturbing here is that a friend of the court brief is being filed by Vermont Law School on behalf of victims’ rights groups.  Clearly what’s intended is to keep Mr. Brillon in jail, even if it means forcing defendants to accept admittedly incompetent counsel.  As discussed in an earlier post, these appeals essentially wish to impose a character test on whether basic rights apply to criminal defendants.  If the defendant is unpopular, the Constitution need not apply.  

Serious problems with the Public Defender’s office were, or should have been, known to all the players here who failed to squawk loudly until the Vermont Supreme Court said enough was enough.  Where were they when they were needed?