Up in Massachusetts, the local press is reporting that Carl Binette pleaded not guilty yesterday to an indictment charging insider trading in Safeco securities. Binette is charged with one count of conspiracy, five counts of securities fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice. You may recall that, as discussed here, prosecutors allege that Binette's uncle learned in the course of his job that Safeco was an acquisition target, and tipped off Binette. Talbot and Binette then proceeded to buy Safeco call options, leading to a profit of $615,833.

And why wouldn't Binette plead not guilty? As you may also recall, he has already provided the SEC with his iron-clad alibi that he decided to purchase the Safeco securities in question "based on a dream he had in which a deceased relative told him that she was 'safe.'"

Putting the dream aside, there is a point in the article today about Binette's not guilty plea that I have a question on and would love to get an answer from any readers out there who can assist. The article says that Binette told the court three weeks ago that he could not afford a lawyer. Yesterday, the court appointed a lawyer for Binette, but reportedly required Binette to pay $800 a month toward his legal costs.

Why the $800/month co-pay requirement? I always assumed that getting a court-appointed lawyer was an all-or-nothing proposition--either you paid for (and got to pick) your own lawyer, or the government chose and appointed a lawyer for you off of an approved list. Is there some middle ground where you pay some and the government pays some? Under what circumstances?