Answer to Question 1
An ideal response would be:
Many defendants cannot afford the legal counsel to which they are constitutionally entitled. The assigned counsel system is the oldest system to provide such defendants with an attorney, and it continues to be used, especially in rural areas. Judges appoint attorneys to represent defendants who cannot afford them. Most such attorneys are paid by the court that appoints them, but sometimes they are expected to do the work pro bonofor the public good. Seldom are they given funds to do any investigatory work on behalf of their clients. Some less scrupulous lawyers make their living as assigned counsel; because it is often to their financial advantage to do so, they are quick to plead their clients guilty.
Answer to Question 2
An ideal response would be:
Trial by jury in civil disputes is used less often these days; people make settlements before a trial, elect to have their cases decided by a judge alone, or refer their cases to a mediator or arbitrator. Furthermore, only a small fraction of criminal cases are actually disposed of by a trial before a jury. Still, jury trials, or their possibility, remain a key feature of the U.S. justice system. Because jury service may be time-consuming and burdensome, many busy people do their best to avoid serving, and today, more time and energy are spent trying to persuade (or coerce) people to serve than in excluding them. In the past, judges were often willing to excuse doctors, nurses, teachers, executives, and other highly skilled people who pleaded that their services were essential outside the jury room. As a result, juries were often selected from panels consisting in large part of older people, those who were unemployed or employed in relatively low-paying jobs, single people, and others who were unable to be excused. Most states have reacted to these problems by making it more difficult to be excused.