I think that's probably right. The system wouldn't be perfect (in particular, you'd still have the problematic specter of the rich hiring whole teams of expert attorneys, giving rise to the suggestion raised here that the rich can, to some degree, buy the justice system), but I think it would be adequate so long as the defendant's resources were typically comparable to the resources brought to bear by the prosecution in a particular case. (Bearing in mind that, for run of the mill cases, the prosecution will not exactly throw every dollar they have at it either.)
This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to suggest it as a solution.
It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also often a bit hyperbolic.
This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to suggest it as a solution.
It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also often a bit hyperbolic.