District of Columbia Statutes

§ 11-2601 — Plan for furnishing representation of indigents in criminal cases.

District of Columbia·Title 11 Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts. [Enacted title]·Ch. 26 Representation of Indigents in Criminal Cases.

The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration shall place in operation, within ninety days after the effective date of this chapter, in the District of Columbia a plan for furnishing representation to any person in the District of Columbia who is financially unable to obtain adequate representation —

(1)who is charged with a felony, or misdemeanor, or other offense for which the sixth amendment to the Constitution requires the appointment of counsel or for whom, in a case in which such person faces loss of liberty, any law of the District of Columbia requires the appointment of counsel;
(2)who is under arrest, when such representation is required by law;
(3)who is charged with violating a condition of probation or parole in custody as a material witness, or seeking collateral relief

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

District of Columbia § 11-2601 (Plan for furnishing representation of indigents in criminal cases.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roth, Pamela v. King, Rufus
449 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Circuit, 2006)
67 case citations
United States v. Roberts
726 F. Supp. 1359 (District of Columbia, 1989)
61 case citations
In Re Cleaver-Bascombe
892 A.2d 396 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)
51 case citations
Price Ex Rel. J.P. v. District of Columbia
792 F.3d 112 (D.C. Circuit, 2015)
36 case citations
Doe v. United States
583 A.2d 670 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
31 case citations
Jenkins v. United States
548 A.2d 102 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)
24 case citations
Olevsky v. District of Columbia
548 A.2d 78 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)
21 case citations
Brooks v. United States
686 A.2d 214 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
19 case citations
Robinson v. United States
565 A.2d 964 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
18 case citations
Williams v. United States
783 A.2d 598 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2001)
17 case citations
Thompson v. Thompson
559 A.2d 311 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
14 case citations
United States v. Hoover-Hankerson
511 F.3d 164 (D.C. Circuit, 2007)
14 case citations
Roth v. District of Columbia Courts
160 F. Supp. 2d 104 (District of Columbia, 2001)
13 case citations
Lee v. United States
597 A.2d 1333 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1991)
12 case citations
Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association v. Federal Trade Commission
856 F.2d 226 (D.C. Circuit, 1988)
11 case citations
Cloutterbuck v. Cloutterbuck
556 A.2d 1082 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
10 case citations
Christian J. Camenisch, II v. United States of America
553 F.2d 1271 (D.C. Circuit, 1976)
10 case citations
Stanton v. Chase
497 A.2d 1066 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1985)
8 case citations
Marshall v. District of Columbia
458 A.2d 28 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1982)
7 case citations

Legislative History

Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1090, Pub. L. 93-412, § 2; June 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103-266, § 1(b)(116), 108 Stat. 713

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗