Whether you qualify for a public defender varies by state. It might be that while yes, hiring a lawyer would destroy her financially, she has the assets to afford it. In which case, depending on your local laws, the court might be fine saying she has to get her own lawyer.

I'm well aware of that. I was speculating that the prosecutor may think that they could prevail vs a court appointed lawyer.

They said "good lawyer".

>> I guess they could be gambling that she can't afford a good lawyer; many people can't.

>Then the government provides a lawyer; you can't be without counsel even if you can't afford them.

I'd note that many (most?) state jurisdictions (the Federal judiciary has the Federal Defender's Service[0]) require a defendant to be "indigent"[1] before a lawyer is appointed, rather than requiring the defendant to hire a lawyer.

Also, in many jurisdictions, private lawyers are appointed by judges to take on the cases of "indigent" defendants. Often there's little in the way of vetting such lawyers, and the fees paid generally aren't very high -- resulting in subpar lawyers and representation.

Even in places (like NYC[2]) with a more robust public defender system, these lawyers are generally handling dozens of cases at once and don't have the resources of the prosecutor's office (investigators, budgets for forensic testing/analysis, etc.), leaving the defendants' side at a considerable disadvantage.

As such, it's not just saying "I can't afford a lawyer," and Perry Mason rushes to your rescue.

[0] https://www.uscourts.gov/topics/defender-services

[1] Different jurisdictions have different standards for determining if a defendant is "indigent." But many of those won't appoint a lawyer unless you're flat broke. Own a home? Take out a second mortgage. Have a job? You're not indigent. Etc, etc, etc.

[2] https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2024/04/08/how-public-defend...