Well, yes; and in practice this ends up meaning that those who can't afford private representation (or high-quality representation) are at a disadvantage in the system, which has been the case for, um, a while now. Far be it from me to oppose an efficient and fair system of torts; I'd even argue that Article III establishes as much about torts as it does about criminal trials ("Cases, in Law and Equity...", "...between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States..."), with the caveat that the NH constitution, which I haven't read, may very well have more or less to say about one or the other.

And yeah, don't get me started on drug law, or the way the DEA loves to assert (dare I say arrogate?) fundamentally legislative powers and continues to nip at the heels of the judiciary.