I would like to expand a bit on my original response. There is another factor that comes into play that has not been mentioned but that I think bears inclusion in this discussion. The Public Defender's Offices exist because they serve a vital constitutional need for provision of legal services for the indigent. It wasn't always this way. The problem is that government and the citizens who elect their governors, legislatures, and here in Pennsylvania their judges are not real enthusiastic about spending money to provide legal services to people who can not afford it themselves. Given a choice between more prosecutors or police officers on the one hand or public defenders on the other, you can imagine how those choices would poll with the public. Our court systems across the Commonwealth are under great strain to appropriately and effectively handle all of the legal matter that are brought before the courts. There is therefore a tremendous incentive for procedures and actions across the justice system to minimize costs. In my mind that translates to pressure exerted on both Commonwealth attorneys and defense counsel to help make things run more smoothly, which means working out plea deals. If every Assistant District Attorney refused to deal on the charges or the penalty to be imposed, more defendants would feel that there was no other option but to take the case to trial. The reverse is likewise true, if every defense attorney fought tooth and nail on every case for every client leaving no stone unturned, the system's efficiency would be compromised. The vast vast majority of criminal cases are disposed of by guilt pleas. That is true of both public defender and private counsel cases. If it were not so, the criminal justice system would come to a screeching halt. The system's pressure on defense counsel to "go along to get along" is in my opinion greatest on members of that county's Public Defender Office and court-appointed counsel. the pressure is less for private attorneys. [By way of an aside let me state that I am not talking about overt, explicit pressure from the system. But that there may be instances where judges communicate their feelings to attorneys at the local country club or bar association functions is entirely plausible. That there are Public Defenders (I'm now talking about the boss in the office) who communicate generally or specifically on a case by case basis with the trial attorneys about the need to be efficient, I've no doubt. My experience over many years as both prosecutor and defense attorney informs me that the likely differences between the handling of a criminal case by public or private attorneys is inversely proportional to the seriousness of the charges. That is, there will be a more noticeable difference with less serious offenses. If a defendant in a drug case had a good suppression issue that COULD result in an outright dismissal but there is an offer from the DA recommending probation where a mandatory minimum prison sentence would otherwise be applicable, I would expect a significant difference to appear. The public attorney doesn't have the time to fully explore the "technical" legal issues (in common parlance "loopholes") and will focus on sentence mitigation where he/she is likely to find a willing prosecutor. Ultimately the outcome for a defendant will depend upon many factors including luck. Most important among them as far as legal counsel is concerned are the skill level of the attorney and experience. I see many instances where defendants are "represented" by private counsel who are either not competent or unwilling to devote the time and energy to an effective defense. In all of those situations, having a public defender would likely be a relative advantage. My bottom line is this: if you can retain a private attorney after conducting a serious effort to find a good one, you will be better off than having an equivalent public defender. I am of course NOT knocking PD's; in many instances I admire what they do and how they do it, but I say "Let's be real."