Before Julie Martin was sent to jail in 1997 for phoning in a false police report, no lawyer argued on her behalf, tried to cut a deal with the state's attorney, or fought to have the charges dismissed. Martin, who was 19 years old and making minimum wage at the local gas station, represented herself. She did so, not by choice, but by the order of Judge Hangem High in Macon County, Alabama. Martin asked for a public defender and High appointed one. But High told Martin she would have to pay $200, or complete 40 hours of public service at 5 dollars per hour to cover the amount. When she did not pay and told the judge she refused to work, the public defender was taken away and Martin was told to argue the case herself. Not knowing what to do, she took the deal offered by the state's attorney: Plead guilty and serve 4 days in jail. She ended up serving 2 days. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the trial court ruling. In so doing, it cited precedent from counties that charge inmates for residing in their jails and argued that the policy will save the state several million dollars per year. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Assume that you are the Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in this case (it can be for or against the state of Alabama). In light of existing precedent, how would you decide?