I. INTRODUCTION

II. METHODOLOGY

III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL

IV. IMPROPER DELEGATION OF ELIGIBILITY DECISION MAKING TO THIRD PARTIES

V. LACK OF UNIFORM PRACTICES AND STANDARDS

VI. THE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION: THE APPROPRIATE INQUIRY

VII. THE STANDARD: "UNABLE TO AFFORD COUNSEL," NOT" INDIGENCY"

VIII. DIVERGENT AND INCONSISTENT INCOME GUIDELINES

1. Diverse Origins of Income Guidelines counsel
2. Variance Among Income Guidelines

IX. CONSIDERATION OF INAPPROPRIATE FACTORS

1. Non-Liquid Assets
2. Ability to Post Bail
3. Parental Assets of Minor Defendants
4. Defendants Charged Solely with Violations

X. FAILURE TO CONSIDER APPROPRIATE FACTORS

XI. INAPPROPRIATE RELIANCE ON A SINGLE FACTOR SUCH AS INCOME

XII. VERIFICATION OF FINANCIAL STATUS MAY UNDERMINE TIMELY APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

XIII. ILLEGAL COST RECOVERY

XIV. CONFIDENTIALITY OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS NOT ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED

XV. WIDE AND UNEXPLAINED VARIATIONS IN RATES OF ADVERSE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

XVI. LACK OF REVIEW PROCESS FOR ADVERSE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

XVII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS