This book is composed of two case studies. Each case study evaluates the performance of the attorney serving as the public defender in Duchesne County, Utah in 2007 and 2008. The case studies demonstrate that there are major flaws in the performance of the public defender with respect to very basic areas of expertise that would be expected of any competent public defender. A defendant should expect to have the public defender engage in (a) the effective cross examination of prosecution witnesses on relevant points ,as opposed to concentrating on completely irrelevant issues, (b) calling expert witnesses in order to impeach the veracity and credibility of prosecution witnesses, (c) placing the defendant on the stand so that his/her testimony would serve as a counterweight to the testimony of the prosecution witness(s), and (d) pointing out obvious false testimony made by prosecution witnesses, such as the claim made in case study one made by a certain prosecution witness that she was the mother of the defendant when her age was 37 and the defendant s age was 34. It is mathematically impossible for this to be the case. Yet the Duchesne County prosecutor, a Mr. Charles, specifically refers to this person as being the mother of the defendant when examining a county sheriff, who likewise refers to this individual as the mother of the defendant. Such gross incompetence violates the constitutional rights of the defendant to adequate, competent representation.