Going Big with Aditi Goel and David Carroll: Taking On America’s Hidden Justice Crisis

Summary

Podcast Summary: Going Big! with Kevin Gentry

Episode: Going Big with Aditi Goel and David Carroll: Taking On America’s Hidden Justice Crisis
Date: February 2, 2026
Host: Kevin Gentry
Guests: David Carroll (Founder and President, Sixth Amendment Center), Aditi Goyal (Executive Director, Sixth Amendment Center)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of "Going Big!" tackles the United States' "hidden justice crisis": the widespread denial of adequate legal counsel to millions of Americans, a problem rooted not in malice but in deep structural and institutional flaws. Host Kevin Gentry speaks with David Carroll and Aditi Goyal of the Sixth Amendment Center, an organization committed to ensuring that the constitutional right to counsel, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is upheld nationwide. Through personal stories, critical insights, and discussion of their nationally recognized, nonpartisan approach to reform, Carroll and Goyal unpack why so many Americans never truly receive their day in court—and what’s being done to fix it.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Understanding the Sixth Amendment and the Crisis

• Definition & Awareness:
  • The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants key rights, most famously, “if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you” (03:45).
  • Pop culture, such as TV police dramas, often misrepresents the extent to which this right is delivered in reality.
• The Realities on the Ground:
  • Millions of Americans in both urban and rural settings are denied proper legal representation due to lack of resources, overworked public defenders, and systemic loopholes (05:03–10:23).
  • Many judges and prosecutors in rural areas are not even trained lawyers, amplifying the potential for miscarriage of justice (05:03–10:23).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 06:52):
    “In much of the country, you don’t need to be a lawyer to be a judge and take away a person’s liberty. In fact, in 22 states, there are non-lawyer judges that have the authority to [do so]. That’s why you need even more guardrails, why a lawyer is needed in the courtroom to protect the rights of the defendant.”

2. Personal "Aha" Moments and Motivations

• David Carroll’s Origin Story:
  • Witnessed the sentencing of a man to jail without an attorney, for stealing firewood to keep his family warm, due to poverty.
  • Realized the scale of unnoticed legal violations and structural deficits in rural courts (05:03–10:23).
• Aditi Goyal’s Motivation:
  • First exposure as a college intern—an 8-year-old in handcuffs, detained overnight for a trivial offense (11:14–17:52).
  • Witnessed the power and importance of a public defender as the constitutional check on government power.
  • Quote (Aditi Goyal, 13:39):
    “To me, this was the most powerful person in the courtroom... and I did not understand who gave this public defender the right... to carve out time and space to make an argument on behalf of this child... That’s just absolutely incredible.”

3. Misconceptions about the Right to Counsel

• Pop Culture vs. Reality:
  • The widely believed notion that “if you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be given to you” isn’t truly realized in many areas (19:16–21:36).
  • Barriers include application fees for public defense, long waits for appointment, encouragement to negotiate with prosecutors before meeting counsel, and overwhelmed defenders.
  • Quote (Aditi Goyal, 19:24):
    “People think it’s a constitutional right, so you have it, but actually there’s a lot that needs to get done to make sure you have it.”

4. The Scale and Impact of the Problem

• Staggering Numbers:
  • About 80% of criminal cases are brought in state and local courts; about 80% of defendants can’t afford their own lawyer (28:58–30:10).
  • Systemic underfunding, especially in rural or resource-poor counties, leads to basic rights being denied.
  • Unrepresented or poorly represented defendants often face not only jail but loss of housing, job licenses, and even, for immigrants, deportation (33:29–36:04).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 34:08):
    “There are lots of collateral consequences from a conviction... when you add it up, it’s a massive cost to government across this country, when you’re probably not making public safety that much better for a lot of these people.”

5. The Sixth Amendment Center’s Approach: The “Going Big” Solution

• Nonpartisan, Invitation-Only, State-Centered Model:
  • The Center only works where they’re invited, maintains a nonpartisan approach, and does not litigate or lobby, focusing instead on collaborative, expert-driven reform (37:31–39:56).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 38:07):
    “We wanted to set up an organization that could talk to whatever party was in power... this is truly an American right that we all should get behind.”
• Practical, Tailored Change:
  • The Center partners with local leaders, conducting comprehensive studies, convening representative task forces (judges, legislators, attorneys, prosecutors), and guiding states to build durable, locally owned public defense infrastructure (42:21–46:52).
  • Example: In South Dakota, helped create a statewide oversight entity and state appellate defender office for the first time, working step-by-step with all three branches of state government.
  • Quote (Aditi Goyal, 42:59):
    “When you bring the Sixth Amendment Center and the state together, that’s really where the magic happens, because what we end up doing is working with the state to learn the problem together.”

6. The Nature of Cultural and Institutional Barriers

• Lack of Malice, Prevalence of Cultural Problems:
  • The problem largely stems from outdated or uninformed systems, not ill intent; even caring judges and officials are constrained by culture, training, or lack of resources (22:22–27:49).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 24:55):
    “A lot of it is just simply the culture that has grown over time. [Most want] to do good but make bad decisions because of the way the system is built.”
• The Need for Trust-Building and Leadership:
  • Real reform happens only when states want it and lead it themselves, with sustained, cross-branch commitment (46:31–47:06).

7. Advice for “Going Big” in Social Change and Justice

• Practical Tips for Aspiring Change-Makers:

  • Start before you think you’re ready; “take that first step” and trust the process (50:13–52:29).
  • Remain humble, curious, and always learning (52:42–53:53).
  • Find mentors, keep mission focus as your “North Star,” and don’t personalize challenges—keep focused on the cause (55:11–57:05).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 51:11):
    “You have a nugget of an idea. Trust yourself, take that first step... You can overthink this. I was 15, 16 years doing this before I started the Sixth Amendment Center.”
  • Quote (Aditi Goyal, 54:07):
    “It does not matter how far you are into your career, just continually remain curious... and keep the mission at heart.”

• On Building Partnerships Across Divides:

  • Solution-making in justice requires genuine engagement and speaking with all sides, not “writing people off” (57:10–59:53).
  • Quote (David Carroll, 57:10):
    “Most people I encounter, whether sheriffs, legislators, or judges, got into government for the right reasons. Now, we may have disagreements about how to make that happen, but it’s really important to remember that.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps):

• David Carroll on rural court injustices:
  “In much of the country, you don’t need to be a lawyer to be a judge and take away a person’s liberty. In fact, in 22 states, there are non-lawyer judges...” (06:52)

• Aditi Goyal’s realization:
  “This was the most powerful person in the courtroom. And I did not understand who gave this public defender the right... to make an argument on behalf of this child...” (13:39)

• Debunking the guarantee:
  “People think it’s a constitutional right, so you have it, but actually there’s a lot that needs to get done to make sure you have it.” (19:24)

• On systemic versus personal causes:
  “A lot of it is just simply the culture that has grown over time.” (24:55)

• On going big and building the organization:
  “You have a nugget of an idea. Trust yourself, take that first step. You can overthink this.” (51:11)

• On trust and bridging divides:
  “Most people I encounter... got into government for the right reasons... don’t write people off.” (57:10)

---

Important Timestamps

• 03:45 – What the Sixth Amendment actually guarantees.
• 05:03 – David Carroll’s “aha moment” in rural Montana court.
• 11:14 – Aditi Goyal’s first exposure to the system, seeing an 8-year-old in handcuffs.
• 19:16 – Common misconceptions about public defense guarantees.
• 22:22 – Another courtroom story; how culture, not malice, leads to bad outcomes.
• 28:58 – The magnitude of the problem: 80% stat.
• 33:29 – The ripple effect: consequences beyond jail.
• 37:31 – The Center’s approach: nonpartisan, collaborative, state-by-state.
• 42:21 – Example: South Dakota’s comprehensive reform and partnership.
• 50:13 – Advice to change-makers: just begin, don’t wait for perfect readiness.
• 54:07 – Remaining curious, mission-focused, and service-oriented.
• 57:10 – The importance of dialogue and trust in government reform.

---

Summary Takeaways

This episode reveals a critical, underappreciated gap in America’s criminal justice system and highlights the power of nonpartisan, quietly persistent leadership. Carroll and Goyal model a strategic, collaborative approach to large-scale reform—one built on trust, expertise, humility, and dedication to justice. Their advice for “going big” is practical yet profound: understand your cause deeply; trust yourself enough to begin; remain humble, mission-focused, and curious; and recognize the humanity and potential for good in those you aim to change.

---

For more information, visit:

• Sixth Amendment Center

Host closing message:
“As we celebrate America’s 250th, let’s double down on the intent that the founders had... and continue to speak out in favor of the same intentions to ensure everyone enjoys the promises of the American dream.” (59:53)

Transcript

[A]

And a relationship sort of formed between us and the state. And the important thing about this is while we have the expertise, right, while we know what the national standards are and what the constitutional requirements are that a state government has to have in place to make sure every person gets their right to counsel, we don't know the facts. And on the other hand, the folks in the state, though, they know the facts, right? They. They can find out what's going on on the ground and know what's going on in the. But they might not have that kind of expertise. So when you bring the two together, when you bring the Sixth Amendment center and the state together, that's really where the magic happens, because what we end up doing is working with the state to learn the problem together.

[B]

Welcome to the Going Big Podcast. I'm your host, Kevin Gentry, and this is the place where we celebrate bold moves and big ideas. Each week I sit down with inspiring leaders, entrepreneurs and change makers who are making a significant impact in their careers and in their communities. Whether you're looking to level up your leadership, pursue your passion, or just get inspired to take your next big leap, this is where those stories come to life. Now, if you're listening on iTunes, YouTube, or anywhere else you tune into podcasts, be sure to hit that subscribe button so you'll never miss an episode. Now let's dive in to what it means to truly be Go Big. Well, welcome back to another episode of the Going Big Podcast. I'm your host, Kevin Gentry, and today we're going to look right at the Constitution of the United States with our guests and the promise of indigent defense, public defense, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. What does that mean and what's going on with respect to our justice system today? Well, I'm very pleased to have as my guests David Carroll and Aditi Goyal, the leaders of the Sixth Amendment Center. They have devoted their professional careers to dealing with something that has become a crisis in the United States that is actually not very well known and very severely misunderstood, in my judgment, where millions of people are being denied the right to counsel that they are guaranteed under the Constitution, and not necessarily because of bad intentions, but because of some just severe structural and institutional deficiencies. The Sixth Amendment center has developed a tremendous program to help states address this through a lot of analysis and benchmark work. And I think you'll find this to be, on the one hand, a little alarming. It has been to me in terms of the severity of the problem we face, but I think also very encouraging with respect to what David and Aditi have chosen to do, the solutions that they've developed and how they've gone big in an area that's of enormous consequence to many people who've been affected. So, David Carroll, Adidi Goyal, thank you for joining us. It's great to have you as my guest today on the Going Big podcast.

[A]

Thank you.

[C]

Thank you, Kevin, for having us.

[B]

Well, David, I'm going to start off with you because you're the president and founder of the Sixth Amendment Center. I think it was 2012, so about 14 years ago when you decided to do this. First of all, what help everyone listening exactly. Understand what is the Sixth Amendment? We I think generally understand the First Amendment, the Second Amendment. We get a little fuzzy and foggy after that. But what is the sixth Amendment and what are we guaranteed to.

[C]

So we're talking about the rights of criminal defendants when the government chooses to try to take away someone's liberty. The Sixth Amendment has several parts, including right to a speedy TR trial. But the issue that Aditi and I really focus on is that idea of if you can't afford a lawyer, the government will provide one for you so that the process is fair. Basically all the other rights and other amendments that are afforded criminal defendants really start from that idea. If you can't advocate for yourself, you will be given someone that's professional and able to advocate for you. A lot of people probably know, know this from popular culture, crime dramas on tv, etc, that when you're arrested along with your right to remain silent, there is the idea that if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. And that is the core issue the 6th Amendment center focuses on.

[B]

All right, so why, why did you decide to devote your professional career? What was the aha moment for you that prompted you to say, this is an injustice. There's something wrong here and I want to try to fix it.

[C]

So Even though the Sixth Amendment center is only 14 years old, I've been doing indigent defense technical assistance and evaluation for a little over 30 years in one form or another. For me, the aha moment was back in the early 2000s when I was doing a study on the state of Montana's indigent defense system. And at the time it was all county based, that there wasn't a large state component. And I flew in and as I often find myself, we were doing Montana in the middle of the winter and I got snowed in, I got in late and I said, you know what, I'm still going to walk down to the courthouse and just see what's going on. And there was one courtroom that was still active. It was a misdemeanor court, and it was out of custody defendants. And as I was sitting there, I noticed there was this one gentleman that just seemed a little out of place. He was obviously nervous. He looked like he was upset to be there. But mostly he was older than most of the other clients, so he kind of stuck out. And when his case was called, it turns out he had been charged with stealing firewood. And the judge asked him about it, and he said he did it. And she asked why. And he said that his wife had cancer. He had two small children, he had lost his job, and his heat had been turned off in the house. And he felt for the good of his family, he had to do whatever he could to try to keep them warm. So he admitted to the crime. The judge thanked him for being honest, and before sentencing, turned to the prosecutor and said, do you have anything to ask before I sentence? And the prosecutor said, I have just one question. Have you ever done this before? Now, Aditi. And I know that defendants will say things for all sorts of reasons, trying to figure out, oh, if I admit to something more, will the judge go easy on me because I'm honest? Or maybe they have developmental delays or other things that just get them to say things, whether they're true or not. And this gentleman said, yes, I've stolen firewood on a number of occasions. And so the prosecutor said, well, I'm amending my complaint and changing it to be several cases of theft, which made it a jailable offense. And that person was sentenced to jail. It wasn't a long jail sentence, but it was a jail sentence. And I thought to myself, what purpose is really being served here? You know, is there another way that the government could have tried to help this person while still holding him accountable? One of the things I love about our job is we always announce where we're going to be and when. And so I was able to go back to the judge's chambers afterwards and interview her. And I said, judge, you know, this to me, was a violation of the Supreme Court case law on the right to counsel and misdemeanors because he went to jail without an attorney. And the judge asked for a citation for that U.S. supreme Court case. And I said, well, I can give it to you, but it is the prevailing sixth amendment case law in your courtroom. So, Kevin, here's the aha moment for me. I don't think most people Know this because I certainly didn't until I was enmeshed in this work is in much of the country, you don't need to be a lawyer to be a judge and take away a person's liberty. In fact, in 22 states, there are non lawyer judges that have the authority to take away a person's liberty. Now, I'm not painting with a broad brush all non lawyer judges because I've met many, many that are very caring, up to date on the law and everything. A lot of them come out of social worker law enforcement and they're really good judges. And but it doesn't mean that all of them are. And so it really means that you have to have even more guardrails and even more reason why a lawyer is needed to be in the courtroom to protect the rights of the defendant. My final message on this is the other piece of the AHA is to the extent people think about this, I think they think about overworked public defenders with too many cases in our urban centers. And what this story shows and what most of our careers have been about is that this is just as much a rural problem as it is an urban problem. It's a different side of the coin, but this is where lots of people in rural America are going to jail without ever speaking to an attorney. And it may not even be, and it may not just be a criminal defense attorney. In many of these courtrooms, the prosecutors aren't, aren't lawyers either. And so the Sixth Amendment, to make sure that it's fair when someone's liberty is taken, demands that there be a professional there advocating for the client.

[B]

Wow. Well, I'm so glad you agreed to join us today. You know, when we first met, I, I'll confess, other than what I, what little I knew through exposure through typical media and entertainment about the right to counsel, I didn't understand it and I certainly didn't understand at all and appreciate the severity of the issue. So I'd like to dig into that more today and then understand the kind of going big approach that you all took to the solution and how, what advice you might give to us about thinking about other similar things as well. But Aditi, Aditi Goyal, you're the executive director of the Sixth Amendment Center. You have a background in public defense, a clinical law professor. What prompted you to decide to devote your professional career to this space?

[A]

Yeah. So before all of that and before becoming a lawyer, I actually had my the very end of college, I did an internship as an investigator at the Public defender service in D.C. and similar to you, I actually had no idea what a public defender was. I didn't even know what the Sixth Amendment was. I was maybe 19, 20 years old. And I did this internship because my psychology professor in college told me this is a good internship if you want to be a forensic psychologist, which is what I wanted to become. And so I went through this training on how to be an investigator. I was a college student and my, I was assigned to the juvenile division, which is where, you know, kids under a certain age are at the office. And my first day at the job, it was basically following my attorney who I was shadowing, but following this attorney, this public defender around court while he handled the arraignments, the first court appearances for the kids who had just been arrested the day before. And so I was going in thinking, okay, you know, well, there'll be some 16 year olds, 15 year olds, 17 year olds, what have you in custody and we'll talk to them and talk to their families and be in court. And my first client that I met was this tiny little human. He was 8 years old, sitting in lockup, in custody, handcuffed. And I had lived a life privileged enough at that point that I had never seen a child in handcuffs before. And it was one of the most alarming things that I had ever seen. And it was for some very silly offense that I won't go into. But it was one of those things that was alarming to everybody actually. It was one of those things where there were like whispers in the courtroom about did you know that there's an 8 year old in custody? The bailiff was surprised, the court clerks were surprised. It was just very confusing and very surprising that some, a number of people, a number of adults, a number of people in Authority handcuffed an 8 year old and a child, put him in a cruiser, he had to spend a night in jail, in a detention facility and then get brought into court. And here he was sitting in a lockup in a courtroom and a few hours later, you know, his case gets called and we're in court and I see my, the attorney there shadowing, he's the public defender and he stands up and he just gives the most elaborate argument ever. Not needed because everybody had decided anyways that he was, that this kid could get released, but just gave this entire argument that paused the court hearings and explained why an eight year old child needed to spend his time in a school and needed to spend his time in his, with his family instead of being in lockup and instead of being in custody. And I. This was my first exposure to a courtroom or to the system in any way. And I remember just thinking that this was the most. To me, this was the most powerful person in the courtroom. And I did not understand who this person was and who gave this public defender the right and the entitlement to take up space and to carve out time and space to make an argument on behalf of this child and say he needs to be released. Right. And the reason for that is that there is a constitutional right to an attorney. There is a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. And the whole point of this is that this attorney and these public defenders, and they're supposed to be the ones that are basically a check on government, and they're supposed to ask the government, are you sure? Right. Are you sure you want to arrest this person for saying something? Or is it that it was their First Amendment right to say something? Are you sure you want to arrest this person for carrying a gun? Or is it that they actually had a Second Amendment right and a lawful right to carry a gun? Are you sure that there is a justified reason to enter this person's property in their home? Or is that a Fourth Amendment violation? Are you sure that you want to interrogate this person for three, four hours, or does this person actually need to be told that. That they have a right to an attorney? Or it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Right. And so there's a really fine line between government power and government overreach. And it can be really difficult and complicated to figure out what that line is. And the whole point of the sixth Amendment and the sixth Amendment right to an attorney is to uphold that line and to keep asking in courtrooms throughout the country, are you sure? Right. And it's supposed to be something where there is a check on government to just slow down the proceedings and to double check and to make sure that what the government is doing is okay and it's a rightful use of power. And I just found this entire concept to be so endlessly fascinating that there would be in the Constitution a right that says there needs to be somebody to check us to make sure that this power is being used correctly. And I think that that's just absolutely incredible. And I've been endlessly fascinated since. And I went to law school, I changed careers altogether, and I went to law school to be a public defender. And I became a public defender and then an instructor. And I've been at the Sixth Amendment center for five years now. And it's just Been the most incredible experience to be here, because where I was practicing here as a public defender, I was practicing in a really, really good system where there is really good training and excellent supervision and really low workload caps. And so I had time to actually represent my clients. And the work at 6ac has really taken me outside of the bubble of where I practiced and go into other states and go into other courtrooms and understand that that's not really what's happening in most other places. And it's just been the most. It's been a real privilege, really, to be able to work in other states and other places, to be able to help their systems ensure that there is a right to counsel there.

[B]

Well, so I think. I'm guessing those listening are in the same boat I am, that we just probably don't fully appreciate the full magnitude of our constitutional rights, the intention and the systems that are there to support it. And, you know, right now, right now in the news, with respect to what's been going on in Minneapolis and so many other places, I think most Americans are confused about what they may see as something that in their gut is not right. But they don't know how to process it because they don't know really what the law says. They don't know how the government is truly restrained and what the rights individuals have. We're celebrating America's 250th birthday this year, the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution that was born out of it with the Bill of Rights, you know, in many ways was trying to address what Americans then felt were the wrongs imposed against them by the British government, the British monarchy, and wanted to defend, limit government and defend rights. So help us, if you would understand a little bit more. Adidi, I'll start with you. What do you think most Americans misunderstand about, we'll say the Sixth Amendment. And what do you think it's important that we do understand?

[A]

I think it's similar to what David started with in pop culture and that we talked about, which is, I think people think that if you. That you have a right to an attorney, and if you can't afford one, one will be given to you. And that's not really quite what's happening. And true in a lot of places. In some places, defendants are discouraged from getting an attorney. For example, in some places, even though you might be so poor that you can't afford to hire a private attorney, you might have to pay some sort of application fee to even ask for a public defender. So basically pay to Access. Right. In some places, you're encouraged to talk to a prosecutor to work out a deal on your case before ever being given the chance to ask for a public defender. In some places, even if you are found, okay, you have a right to a public defender and you're going to get one. You might wait for months in jail and in custody while your case is pending before an attorney is ever there to visit you or get appointed to your case. And, you know, finally you might get an attorney that is just so overworked or is so, you know, there's so many conflicts that they don't have time to spend on their case. Right. So there's a lot of different ways where I think people think it's a constitutional right, so you have it, but actually there's a lot that needs to get done to make sure that you have it. And there's a lot that governments need to put in place to make sure that every single person who cannot afford to hire a private attorney is in fact given one. And that's the work that Successee does. A lot of these flaws, sort of that we see that I mention here are not intentional. They really aren't. They're not designed. The governments are not out there designing this system trying to say, oh, we really want this person not to have an attorney. That's not what the goal is. A lot of times there's something structural going on that's causing this as the impact, not necessarily the intent. And our goal is to be able to talk to governments and to work with them to try to get what they're actually intending, which is to ensure a constitutional right without the harms that are taking place here.

[B]

Well, David, if you could help us understand a little bit further as well, maybe there's just another specific example that you might share that could help us appreciate it. You know, I've always understood that a lawyer, an attorney, was our advocate, someone who understood the law in a way that I wouldn't understand the law. Kind of like the examples that you gave. And, and, and they would be able to, you know, give me the kind of representation that would be commensurate with the prosecution and the judge and everything. I think that's what you're saying. So help just if, if you would, maybe. Is there another example that the audience can, can see that can help them appreciate the nature of the problem?

[C]

Sure. I was, I was just thinking about another case where I saw this time in rural Utah. We had been asked in by a judicial review group to look at their Indigent defense system. And I was in another rural misdemeanor court, and they were having a docket that had lots of things. Some arraignments, some sentencing, some status checks. And I was really intrigued by this one young woman. When her case was called, it seemed that she had passed a bad chit check and had pled guilty several months earlier. And this was established check. And the judge said, I'll call her Mary. Mary, I'm delighted to see that you've been attending your AA classes, but I see you haven't done anything as far as putting money towards your fees and restitution. And she said, judge, I would like to go to jail. And the judge was a little taken aback and said, wait, you want to go to jail? And she said, well, I have no prospects of getting a job. I don't have a ged. My license was suspended. There are no jobs in this part of the Utah. I don't want to pretend coming back here month after month after month that I'm going to pay these fees when I can't. And the judge said, well, no one wants to go to jail. Do you have any issues with depression or anything? And she said, judge, I don't know. I don't have health insurance. I've never been screened. I don't know. So the judge thought about it for a second, said, well, if I put you in jail, you will be screened and you'll get both, you know, physical and mental health and have access to things. The only problem is they'll do a urinalysis. Are they gonna find anything? And she said, you know, judge, to be honest, they'll probably be a little THC and maybe some alcohol. And he said, well, okay then. Then jail is really the place for you. Come on through, bailiff, take her to jail. And so I talked to that judge after that, that hearing too, and I asked him specifically about the case. And not to get in the weeds, but there's a sixth amendment case law from, from the US Supreme Court that says even if the, the punishment is suspended, that says, you know, you're not going to go to jail today, but you'll be on probation. You can't do that unless someone has been given the opportunity for a lawyer. So I said, all those months ago when she pled, did she have a lawyer? And the judge said, no. And I said, why not? And he said, well, for the level of the bad check that she passed, it's not a jailable offense. And I said, okay, so by what authority did you just Put her in jail. He thought about it, and he scratched his head a little bit. And he said, Mr. Carroll, you ask really tough questions. And I said, do you think maybe she waived the right to counsel and therefore can go in willingly? There's another U.S. supreme Court case about how to do that? And he said, yes, yes, that's what I think. And I said, even though you diagnosed her as being depressed, and she admitted in court that she was on drugs and alcohol? And he said, yeah, we better get her out of jail. And I again, in this case, there was not a prosecutor in the courtroom. The judge was not a lawyer. There was not a public defender in that courtroom. I later interviewed the public defender that had a contract for that case for that courtroom. And he said, they pay me so little money, I can't afford to go to status hearings. People are on their own. And I want to underscore one piece of this, Kevin, because I think it's really important for your audience is this judge was very caring. He was trying to get her help. He was. You know, there wasn't access to medical care and mental health care on the outside, and so he was willing to put her in jail for that reason. And I think most people are when, if they think about this issue, certainly a lot of other advocacy groups, I think there's this sense of there's malicious intent on everybody involved in the criminal justice system to put people in jail, and it's just not the case in a lot of places. You don't, you know, when. When a deity came out of law school, you're not trained to be a public defender or. Or a judge or a prosecutor. You learn the culture you're thrown into. And if the culture is, it's okay for public defenders not to be at status hearings, that's what you learn. Or if you learn, it's okay on day one to be given 180 cases and you have to work all of them and no one's objecting to it. You're like, oh, that's the usual. I think that is the key to fixing these problems, is it seems like a lot of people want to find malicious intent, when in fact, a lot of it is just simply the culture that has grown over time.

[B]

All right, so help us understand more than the problem. I'm, again, I'm really grateful that you're doing this. This is a little different than my typical going big guest. But I wanted to have you because of the extraordinary, I think, first of all, significance of the problem we face that is vastly misunderstood. And underappreciated. And yet we'll get to in a moment the really going big solution that you've come up with and how truly effective it has been. But help us understand the problem more. So are you saying that it is just ignorance overwhelmingly, or what do you mean by some of the structural and institutional deficiencies? Why I'm guessing what you're saying is that there are a lot of people who are going to jail because in your judgment, because they did not exercise their right to counsel. And that is happening because of some other problems that you're working to address. Just help us to understand now more of the problem before we get into your solution.

[A]

Yeah, I guess maybe I can take this with, with, with just an example of a state that we worked in that would help kind of contextualize this a little bit. Right. And also the, the scope of the problem. Right. So just to kind of go back here, about 80ish percent of criminal cases that are filed are in state and local court. Right. So America's criminal justice system is in the state and local courts throughout the country. And on top of that, about 80% of people who are charged with criminal offenses cannot afford to hire a private attorney. So when you're talking about the sixth Amendment right to counsel, you are talking about primarily the impact on individuals and criminal justice systems and court systems throughout state and local courts in America, and the vast majority of which cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Right. The, the thing that we run into about three years ago or so, we started working in South Dakota. Okay.

[B]

And I'm going to jump in here. So this vast percentage of people who can't afford account their, their own attorney.

[A]

Yeah, that's right.

[B]

Are they not then being well served by the public defender? Is that the, a problem?

[A]

That's correct. In the vast majority of places, there is not an infrastructure for individuals to get an attorney, or there is no infrastructure at all for individuals to get an attorney.

[B]

So the bottom line is that though the Constitution guarantees our right to an attorney and the government will provide one, if we, if we are not able to provide one, that promise is not being fulfilled. Is that the bottom line?

[A]

That is the bottom line.

[C]

Yes, it is. And there's all sorts of reasons that we could go into. For instance, a lot of states say, okay, county government, you deal with it. And the county say, okay, municipal government, you deal with it. And you get to these places where there's people making decisions that are trying to do good but make bad decisions. Some of them will be like well, judge, you pick the lawyers, right? And so judges will be contracting directly with the lawyers who are, who are presenting cases in front of them. Well, that's a conflict of interest because the lawyer has to consider what do I need to do to get this judge to give me the next contract versus what am I supposed to do to properly represent this person? Another instance could be you get a contract for an unlimited number of cases. No matter how many cases that come into this courtroom, you get the same amount of money. Well, then there's a financial incentive for the lawyer to dispose of the cases as quickly as possible because he's being paid the same amount whether he took all the cases to trial or got rid of them on day one. There's lots of these systemic built in problems that have been there for decades and decades. And those are some of the things that we're always trying to uncover and show to the policymakers in the state.

[B]

Okay, well, now I want to shift to the solution, but in just a moment, you're helping us understand the precise problem you're working to address and then the solution that you've come up with. And thank you very much for doing that. But again, for the benefit, I'll say, of our audience, but frankly, the benefit of me too, because I still don't understand the full severity of this. Because you mentioned earlier, Aditi, that you know, the vast majority of criminal defendants are in our state and local courts, and the vast majority of them were unable to hire their own counsel, but yet the public defender system is failing them. I know that's hard to quantify, and you've given some stories that help bring it to life, but how would both of you, and Aditi, I'll let you go first, just help our audience understand the full severity of this. Is this a big problem? Are there thousands of people, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people not being adequately represented? What? What, how would you describe it in a way that we can truly and easily and better understand the consequential nature of this?

[A]

The problem is massive. It affects thousands of people throughout the country, in state and local courtrooms everywhere. And the reason for it is different, depending on the jurisdiction. But the problem is massive. And it's not only massive because people are not getting their right to an attorney. It's massive because when you do not get your right to an attorney, that means that that person cannot ask for their other constitutional rights. And so it waters down their other constitutional rights as well. So it has that ripple effect too.

[B]

David.

[C]

So what I was Thinking about is that there are lots of collateral consequences that come from a conviction. You may lose your public housing, you may be deported, you may lose your professional licenses that you had for your job. You know, when I was working with policymakers in Idaho, one of the people that led reform, Representative Christy Perry, her daytime job was a gun owner, a gun store owner. She came to this issue because she was seeing people were losing their right to own a gun and it was impacting her business because people were having to give up their guns with convictions simply due to faulty structural, indigent defense systems. The other piece I asked your audience to think about is incarceration is the most costly form of government that there is. You are telling people when to wake up, when they can wash, when you know what they are going to eat, when they're going to eat, housing, people having to have the public security there, the number of guards that are necessary and all that. A lot of these problems could be solved with a less expensive form of government. And so you're really talking about this, this exploding effect of these are little stories we're telling you about individual people, but when you add it up, it's a massive cost to government across this country when you're probably not, you know, making public safety that much better for a lot of these people who have nonviolent offenses that could be handled in a less expensive way here.

[B]

Well, you know, this is, this is a big issue. It's a complicated issue. There have been recent movements with what we would call criminal justice reform. As I understand it, you know, while the United states only represents 5% of the world's population, 25% of the incarcerated population is in the United States. So something is, is off kilter. But then there was a reaction against a lot of criminal justice reform efforts. I think people feel that it was the reform efforts were somehow leading to increases in crime. It's a complicated, complicated issue, but for me, and again, it says we celebrate America's 250th birthday, that we have these guarantees in the Constitution that are protected and the Supreme Court is upholding those protections, those rights whenever they're challenged, and the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc, but somehow something is slipping here very badly. Okay? And if you disagree with that, you can, you can challenge me back. But help us now understand the solution that you have come up with. David, I'll let you go first because, I mean, look, for those who understand this issue, you are regarded as the national leader. You have set the standard for the right redress of this, this ill. This grievance. But what are you doing? What's the solution?

[C]

Well, we'll tag team it here. I'll tell you sort of the founding principles, and then Aditi can talk about how they're implemented when we. When we work. All my years of working on this problem under one form or another, I decided what the country truly needed was a. A nonprofit organization that was truly nonpartisan. There are just as many problems in blue states as there are in red states. And we wanted to set up an organization that could talk to whatever party was in power. So our board is nonpartisan, our funding is nonpartisan. We seek board members and funding from all ends of the political spectrum to come together and say, this is truly an American right, that we all should get behind to do it. So nonpartisanism was the first part of the solution. The second was I really felt like we were able to educate people and talk to them if they really had the ability to work through these problems. And so we didn't want to go anywhere where we weren't invited in that. I know that sounds funny, but we knew of problems in Idaho before we went there.

[B]

Right.

[C]

But we respected the powers that be in that state that we didn't want to come in and write a report and have it gather dust on the shelves. And so we wait to be asked in. And in return for that, we say for inviting us in and letting us look around, we will promise that we will never be litigate these problems if you, you know, let us in. We find problems in, in your system. You should know that. We're not going to litigate them. We'd rather work with you to help you find solutions that best suit your state. And similarly, we're never going to lobby for one answer or the other. The fact of the matter is there isn't a single cookie cutter model that you can pull off the shelf and say, hey, what works in Massachusetts works in Texas. You really do need to work on things that address the uniquenesses of each and every state. So those were the basic principles we laid down. And Aditi can talk about sort of how we implement those policies.

[B]

Awesome. And Aditi, before you answer that, I'd like to actually even take it a step further. So many nonprofit. First of all, you're doing this as a nonprofit organization. Frankly, many nonprofits often try to do too much. I think we all know that. Acknowledge that some try to boil the ocean, to use that old phrase. You will have a very. You're taking on a massive problem. But you have a very narrow focus in terms of how you're addressing it. And it seems to have worked effectively. How important is a strict discipline and adherence to that approach? The key to what you all have been able to do.

[A]

Very. I think it's very important. The thing with public defense and the thing with the right to counsel, and you mentioned this earlier, is that it is overlooked. Right. There's a reason why I didn't know about this issue before I was exposed to it or that. Kevin, you didn't know about this issue before you were exposed to it. It is a not a very known issue. And for that reason, it is important that there be a nonprofit that exclusively focuses on this issue. Because a lot of criminal justice and we talked about. But criminal justice starts with indigent defense. It's going to be impossible to see the first, second, fourth, fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments actually come to fruition and be realized if there is not a constitutional right to an attorney. And because the issue is that important, it is important that this remain exclusively focused, even though it can be difficult to do that as a criminal justice organization. But the issue warrants it and it deserves it. And it's. It's that massive and that important that it warrants that kind of dedicated energy.

[B]

Now, you'll focus on particular states at a time where, as you say, you're welcomed in. You're. Is. Are you at liberty to just describe either maybe a specific state or maybe you could just do it without naming the state. But how does it. How does it work? What give us the. A sense for what happens when the problem is identified, you're welcomed in, and then you help them in partnership get to a better spot.

[A]

Yeah. Maybe generally, can. Can speak to this. We were recently welcomed into the state of South Dakota just about three years ago. The state was dealing with a lot of. Well, actually take a. The state wasn't funding public defense. Right. And what that meant was it required the county governments and the local governments to say, you need to fund this entire right to counsel. And the county governments are stretched thin. The local governments were having a really difficult time paying for this and funding this. And they Learned about the 6th Amendment Center. And a relationship sort of formed between us and the state. And the important thing about this is while we have the expertise. Right. While we know what the national standards are and what the constitutional requirements are that a state government has to have in place to make sure every person gets their right to counsel or we don't know the facts. And on the other hand, the folks in the state, though, they know the facts, right? They. They can find out what's going on on the ground and know what's going on in the courts, but they might not have that kind of expertise. So when you bring the two together, when you bring the Sixth Amendment center and the state together, that's really where the magic happens. Because what we end up doing is working with the state to learn the problem together, right? As David said, there is no cookie cutter model. There is no one size fits all for what's best for a state, and we don't know the problems in it. And so what we did with the state of South Dakota was let's learn together to figure out what's going on in your courtroom. So the state Supreme Court formed a task force that was representative. It was an incredible task force. Representative had legislators on it, judges, public defenders, private attorneys, members from the prosecutor's office on it, and really spent about several months doing listening sessions throughout the state, conducting surveys and trying to figure out what was going on. Why were these county governments having such a difficult time trying to provide an attorney to indigent people? And a big reason is there's one law school in the state, the county government's ESHA. Every single one of the 66 counties had to figure out how to fund this. And they were all sort of competing with each other for the attorneys. And the attorneys were driving around from one county to another hours at a time, trying to make it to court, and they were losing money doing so. So it was just. They weren't able to. It was a supply and demand issue to a certain respect, right? It was. It was very difficult for them to actually meet this. Right. But we started learning about this. We started learning about other issues. And the task force at the end, and we really guided them throughout the way, and they really took the lead. And at the end, they decided. By the end of the task force, we're going to create, for the very first time, a state oversight entity that's charged with making sure that every single person gets their right to counsel. We're going to create a state appellate defender office, which is the very first state office to ever provide any kind of direct representation and actually represent clients. And we're going to ask the Sixth Amendment center to do a comprehensive study to understand the depth of the problem that we are trying to solve, and that this study will inform the newly created commission on how it can continue making sure that people are provided their right to counsel. They've taken an incredible incremental approach the commission's been up and running for about two, two and a half years now. The state office is as well. And they are brick by brick laying the foundation for what will hopefully be a very strong oversight commission and a very strong. To be able to make sure that the problems that they were dealing with no longer exist, but with an understanding that it'll take some time to get there. So we really provide our guidance and our expertise along the way, but the credit really goes to the leaders in South Dakota. Actually, they were the ones that principle that David was talking about. The desire has to come from within. You have to want us to be there. Right. And that is that they want to fix this problem. They really deserve the credit because without their leadership from the state Supreme Court, from the state legislature and Governor Kristi Noem's office, I mean, they signed the legislation really trying to provide this. Right. Without that kind of all three branch government leadership, this wouldn't have happened. And so how it happens is, has a lot to do with the folks in the state and the people and the leaders in the state.

[B]

All right, well, I want to begin to wrap this up and take it through the lens of going big in the manner that you'll have. I have a couple of quick questions that I think will help bring it together, and then I'll direct these specific questions in terms of how we can learn from you. First of all, just to be clear, is anyone else really working on the Sixth Amendment?

[C]

So there certainly are other groups. They take different approaches. One I'll just name because I think they've accomplished a lot in their approach. The ACLU often brings big systemic lawsuits to states that aren't upholding the Sixth Amendment. It's a little bit of. They take that approach of we're going to force this versus where we're more like we want to help. I think there's, there's, you know, good and bad about, about that approach, and they would probably say the same thing about us, but they're certainly in the space and, and, and doing a lot of work on this issue.

[B]

Do you. Is there anyone else who's working on it in the, in the, in, in the manner of the solution that you offer that is working cooperatively with the, the, the state and in some cases local governments to help them get to a better spot.

[C]

Now we're. We're the only folks that are doing that.

[B]

Fascinating.

[C]

In this manner. Yes.

[B]

Yes. All right, well, just. So if people want to learn more about this, how do they find out? It's 6ac yes6ac.org well, again, this is fascinating and we could go on a lot longer, I think. And I think we're just beginning to scratch the surface for our audience and me to understand the nature and severity of the problem and the possible solutions. And again, I think it's just, it's a little mind boggling that we have this constitutional guarantee that we're just not living up to the promise of. I mean, there are plenty of other areas as well, but this is such a glaring, glaring gap. So help us understand a little bit about how you think about dedication and leadership, how you think about taking your special gifts that you each have from your experiences, your passions, your, your, your principles, your values and applying it in this space. What advice would you give to anyone listening that either might be interested in this similar space too, but might be interested in some other area where they see an injustice or problem or a threat that they'd like to see addressed, perhaps through a nonprofit organization, through a, let me just say through a solution, through a solution that is practical because you'll have come up with a solution to the problem that seems to be making a difference. David, you, you started this and you've got a chance to look back on this. What advice would you give to anyone listening about how they may think in a similar manner as you have?

[C]

So I, I think it, when you look back on it, it seems like this was well planned out and thought through and, you know, it came through in one complete box and it just had to be open and done. That was far from it. I think, you know, it is scary to start a new business, right? My wife and I had two young kids at the time. Like, you know, we're thinking about security and other things. Have I thought through everything has, you know, how do I do this? And I was asking everybody under the sun, how do you do this? Am I thinking of everything? Blah, blah, blah. And one friend who's a professor at George Washington University said, have I ever told you about the story of my friend that bicycled across the country? I was like, no, I don't think I've ever heard this story. And he said, yeah, he decided to bike across the country. And when he got all the way across, a newspaper reporter or something said, so how much did you train to be able to do this? And he said, oh, I got fit along the way. And that's really sort of the theory of the Sixth Amendment center is like, take that first step. You can't possibly know everything that you're going to Encounter. You can overthink this. You have a nugget of an idea. Trust yourself, take that first step. I think we're seeing a lot of young kids coming out of both law school and undergraduate who are, who are very passionate about the criminal justice system on all sides of the political spectrum and they don't know how to start. And they are constantly asking me, how did this start? And it's like I took the first step. You just have to start somewhere. Don't think you're going to start at the top of the ladder. Just get involved, start working, start learning as much as you can about it. You know, I, I was 15, 16 years doing this before I started the, the Sixth Amendment Center. I had to be humble and learn and figure out the problem. But you just have to start and take that first step.

[B]

Well, Dede, as you look forward into the future in terms of how to lead this effort further, how do you think about this and what advice would you give to those who might like to apply their gifts as you have?

[A]

Oh, I, I think the advice I go is just never stop learning. Right. I mean there's, I, there's so much that I have even I've been an attorney for 13 years and I'm still learning so much. And I think right now there's a lot of mental traps people can get in, making assumptions about what a place might be like, what a job might be like, what whether a certain area will welcome you in or whether. And it's just, there's a lot of assumptions, there's a lot of fears that people kind of are held back by. And I think my advice is just continue learning. And you don't have to over plan, you don't have to overthink it. Just go do the thing. Try to learn as much as you can from it. And when you're ready to go, go right, Go do something else. Go try something else. But it's okay to not, but it's just, it's okay to not have everything planned out and to just kind of go with the force of where things take you and to be open minded along the way and be curious and open minded along the way. Whatever your passion is, just remain curious. And it doesn't matter how far you are into your career, just continually remain curious, I think is important.

[B]

Well, again, really applaud your sense of service and dedication and how you both stepped forward in leadership. So here's the final question I'd ask to each of you. Aditi, I'll go with you first and then, David, I'll let you, as the founder of the Sixth Amendment center, close this out. What other advice would you give to folks listening who may feel passionate about a cause? Again, they see an injustice where they want to right that wrong. And they may want to do it through a nonprofit organization, or maybe they want to do it through a business. They want to do it through some endeavor that's going to address it. How would you think Recommend that they think about assessing risk, taking risks. Each of you took professional risks. You take political risks, you take financial risks. Or you can also address the question of how you can look to getting, seeking the advice and counsel and wisdom of others, maybe as mentors, if you would answer either or both of those questions. But again, some final advice to those listening on what you think is important. How to think about devoting your life to a much more meaningful and purposeful contribution in the manner that you all have. So, Aditi, I'll let you go first. And Aditi, again, thank you for your. For what you're doing at the Sixth Amendment Center.

[A]

Oh, of course, Kevin. Thanks for having us. You know, I have been very lucky to have incredible supervisors along the way throughout my career. I really am. And I do think about that quite often. And I've just been lucky to have people that have really demonstrated themselves living a life that is bigger than themselves. Right. And I do think it's important to, to have some part of your life. It might not be your job, it might not be something, but just it do something that is bigger than yourself can keep you actually very grounded. And to believe in something that's bigger than yourself can be very grounding. I think the, you know, the thing that I've learned from a lot of my supervisors that I've been very lucky to have, present company included with David, is they're very mission focused. I have been very lucky to have mission focused supervisors and people I've looked up to, which is they do not make it about you. Like, they do not make it about themselves, and they do not make it about you or personalize it so much. And they really keep the, the focus of it, the cause, and it's. It. If it's a cause you believe in and it's a, it's a mission that you really value, I do think that the other stuff will kind of just fall into place. And I know that's not maybe the most comforting advice, but I do feel like if you feel there is a cause that you believe in and that you keep that as your North Star and that there is a good reason for it. Other things do fall into place and you will get connected hopefully with, with the right people. For anybody out there who's interested in the sixth Amendment right to counsel, please reach out to us. I mean, I would love to talk to you. I think David would love to talk to you. I think it's an important issue and you know, keep the mission at heart is really, really important.

[B]

Yeah, thank you. Excellent, Adidi. All right, David, close this out.

[C]

So one of the things that I think is really, really important for people to know is that been doing it 30 years, been to all 50 states in some capacity or another. I would say 97% of the people I encounter, whether they're sheriffs, whether they're legislators, whether they're judges, got into government for the right reasons. They want to do well by their community. Now, we may all have disagreements about how to make that happen, but it's really important to remember that I think most people are trying to do good and that means it's worth talking to them. Right. Like I was done with bumper sticker politics before the advent of social media. You know, you, we need to talk to one another and don't write people off. I can't tell you in the number of states I've been involved when I said who's the most important legislature to get on this legislator to get on this and they'll say, oh, it's this person, but he'll never do it or she'll never do it or whatever. And you know, the number of times we've sat down and just talked and broken bread, oftentimes over dinner and just talked about the issues and tried to find out what gets them motivated and how to do that. And I think that is really something I never thought was unique about us, but I'm finding is more and more unique about us. Our willingness to talk to anybody at their level and figure out how do we get you to where we want you to be. And you know, in, in Idaho, I was told Representative Darrell Bowles, who was on the, he was the chair of both judiciary and finance. He's the person you have to get. Well, you know, worked with him, found out his reasons and all that. When he retired, he became the chair of the Indigent Defense Commission in Idaho. Now subsequently they've made choices to go to an all statewide model that they don't need a commission to balance local and state government. But that's how impassioned he became about the issue. Because we're willing to take a chance and meet and talk to him about it. So that's my desire, is really to see politics get to a place where people are willing to talk with one another again.

[B]

Hear, hear. Well, that's a, that's a, that's a challenge in and of itself, but we really appreciate the manner in which you have and you've done it successfully. David Carroll, Aditi Goyal, thank you so much for what you're doing at the Sixth Amendment center, ladies and gentlemen. Check them out. And I would especially encourage you at this moment, as we celebrate America's 250th, to dig back in about the intent the founders of our nation had in terms of protecting our liberties and limiting government to its rightful role and understanding how we can continue to speak out in favor of the same intentions that they had to ensure that everyone does enjoy the promises of the American dream. So thank you. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thanks for tuning in to the Going Big podcast. I hope today's conversation left you feeling energized and ready to tackle your biggest goals. Don't forget to subscribe. Subscribe and leave us a review on iTunes, YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts. It really helps spread the word and it gets these inspiring stories out to more people. You can also find more content, resources and updates at our website, goingbigpodcast.com Remember, the only limits are the ones you don't challenge, the limits that you impose on yourself. Keep pushing, keep growing, and above all, all, keep going big. See you next time on the Going Big Podcast.