Whose Motives?

The author of the article titled “Stirling Motives Debated in Pursuing Case That Caused Defender’s Fall” (May 22) might well examine his own motives in cavalierly including mention of the fact that “the county has paid (Logan) McKechnie $642,005 since 1986.”

Even assuming that figure has any validity, the most inexperienced journalistic reporter could have learned, by simply asking any attorney who does appointed work, that the figure includes amounts paid for investigators, law clerks, copying and photographs, expert witnesses and other such expenses unavoidable in the handling of a criminal case. The impression the author no doubt meant to convey was that Mr. McKechnie had some exorbitant financial incentive in ensuring “Defender’s Fall.”

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. From all that we are able to determine, Mr. McKechnie (and others of us in private practice who accept appointed criminal cases) would have been far better off, from a financial perspective, had the Board of Supervisors approved the Community Defenders program. Under the public defender approach, the private bar will receive far fewer cases, if any, in the future than would otherwise have been the case.

The author’s imputation of pecuniary gain to Mr. McKechnie as a result of the failure of Community Defenders thus lacks any basis in reason and causes me to question the journalistic biases of the author.

GLORENE FRANCO

San Diego