Now suppose the state initiates a civil restitution proceeding to recoup the costs of the damages on behalf of the victim. The criminal complains he can't understand the proceedings and ought to have his court-appointed attorney (at a cost of $10,000) to help him out.
Now suppose the criminal suffered personal injuries of his own when he slipped on a banana peel left lying on his victim's sidewalk. The neighbor is a man of modest means and cannot afford to retain an attorney. All he owns is his home but that's sufficient to entice a bottom-feeder lawyer to represent the criminal on a 40 percent contingency fee arrangement based on the assumed value of the home. The criminal sues the victim. The victim complains he can't understand the proceedings and asks for a court-appointed attorney (at a taxpayer cost of $10,000) to represent him.
Which, if either, of these two men has a Constitutional right to an attorney? Why?