If you cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint you one

[TravelMan]

TN.

In Rowland Vs California Mens Colony

the Supreme Court said this,

" The second revealing feature of § 1915(d) is its description of the affidavit required by § 1915(a) as an "allegation of poverty." Poverty, in its primary sense, is a human condition, to be "[w]anting in material riches or goods; lacking in the comforts of life; needy," Webster's New International Dictionary 1919 (2d ed. 1942), and it was in just such distinctly human terms that this Court had established the standard of eligibility long before Congress considered extending in forma pauperis treatment from "citizens" to "persons." As we first said in 1948, "[w]e think an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty `pay or give security for thecosts . . . and still be able to provide' himself and dependents `with the necessities of life.' " Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339. But artificial entities do not fit this description. Whatever the state of its treasury, an association or corporation cannot be said to "lac[k] the comforts of life," any more than one can sensibly ask whether it can provide itself, let alone its dependents, with life's "necessities." Artificial entities may be insolvent, but they are not well spoken of as "poor." So eccentric a description is not lightly to be imputed to Congress.

The third clue is much like the second. Section 1915(a) authorizes the courts to allow litigation without the prepayment of fees, costs or security "by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor," and requires that the affidavit also "state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that he is entitled to redress." "

so what exactly is required in the state of Tennessee to get a court appointed attorney?

once such an appropriate affidavit was sworn fitting the guidelines of the Supreme Court findings, it would seem that should suffice but, with all the budget crunches and funding issues of the Public Defenders system, currently in the news, it would seem the TN courts require one to be totally bankrupt and without any possessions whatsoever in order to appoint counsel.

It seems reasonable to me that a person with income even at the Federal Poverty Level certainly could not afford to pay five figures for an attorney yet the courts here seem to refuse to appoint an attorney to even people BELOW such income levels, and even those with NO income due to being disabled.

Isn't this far removed from what the Supreme Court has ruled?

Is there a reasonably sure way for an "indigent person" to be able to proceed and have counsel appointed?

If such a person owns a house with a mortgage, should they have to sell their house even if the net proceeds would or may not even bring them even with board much less pay for an attorney as well? I heard a judge tell a person this week they had to sell their house to pay for an attorney, and having no idea of what other debts that person may have or how much, if any, net proceeds there would be as a result of such a sale.

What if a person is disabled and can prove they need medical procedures, which are not insured, which cost far more than retaining an attorney, and they cannot remotely afford such treatment either?

Where does this stop?

Can a person really be arrested, presumed innocent until proven guilty, and forced to be homeless and without basic necessities of life, due to having to sell everything they own and hopefully finding enough to retain legal counsel, merely because the state does not wish to honor the rights established in Gideon vs Wainright?