...decided to review Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) for this week’s post. I found these two cases to be similar in the resulting opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court. In both cases the court found that the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendants were violated by the trial courts. Powell v. Alabama was significant in multiple aspects. It established the precedent that not only must a lawyer be assigned but the court, but that that lawyer must also provide effective counsel to the defendant. The Supreme Court recognized that a counsel who never meets with the defendant is not providing the legal representation to the defendant that was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The second precedent that I think it set, even it if was not intended, is that all persons accused of a crime are entitled to...
Words: 596 - Pages: 3
...The fact that poor men like Matthew had a lawyer, despite his inability to pay is because of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). This case overturned the previous standing of “only during special circumstances,” that was established in Betts v. Brady (1942). In Gideon v. Wainwright, the court had to decide if the sixth amendment gave the right to council in all cases or not. The court’s philosophy at the time leaned more toward activism. This means that the court used its power to protect the rights of the minority, in this decision they applied that power to the poor. The decision stated that every individual has a right to representation. Matthew’s case took place in the 1980’s, and because of the time he had the right to representation. The problem with everyone getting an attorney is that he still did not have the best possible representation… Even though it is a much better situation to have an attorney during the trial process...
Words: 1835 - Pages: 8
...Counsel for his defense (U.S. Const. amend. VI). In today’s society, the Supreme Court has decided that the Sixth Amendment also means in federal courts, counsel must be provided for indigent defendants unable to obtain their own attorneys. The Supreme Court has made many decisions shaping the Sixth Amendment into what it is today while keeping it close to its original intent I believe. Some of the influential cases are: Johnson v. Zerbst, Betts v. Brady, Gideon v. Wainwright, Argerisnger v. Hamilton, Faretta v. California, and Strickland v. Washington. I decided to highlight these decisions because I believe they are good examples of how the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted and sculpted to fit in today’s world. Indigent felony defendants in federal court are entitled to court-appointed counsel, decided in 1938 in Johnson v. Zerbst (Neubaur & Fradella, 2014). Then in 1942 we had the Betts v. Brady decision, in that case, the justices had ruled that indigent defendants need only be provided with a lawyer under special circumstances (Summary of the Decision, n.d.). Meaning indigent defendants in noncapital...
Words: 842 - Pages: 4
...The Indigent Defender: Gideon versus Wainwright Do you think indigent defendants, or defendants without lawyers should be provided with lawyers in all court cases? Gideon versus Wainwright is a case that will decide if indigent defendants will. The case of whether indigent defendants should be provided with lawyers. There have been many other cases similar to this, like Powell versus Alabama, Palko versus Connecticut, and Betts versus Brady. Indigent defendants should not be provided lawyers in court unless their offense is capital. The case started in 1961 when a homeless man by the name of Clarence Earl Gideon was caught “Breaking and entering into a Panama City, Florida, pool hall and stealing money from the hall's vending machines” (Mcbride). He stole less than one hundred dollars and some...
Words: 746 - Pages: 3
...On August 4, 1961 a poor 50-year-old man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Panama City, Florida after being accused of breaking and entering into the Bay Harbour pool hall and stealing money from the hall's vending machines. Gideon, could not afford a lawyer himself so he requested that an attorney be appointed to represent him. He had to defend himself in a Florida court because the judge in the case refused to appoint him a free lawyer because Florida law says they only appoint lawyers for poor defendants charged with capital offenses. The jury found Gideon guilty and was charged in Florida state court with a felony and sentenced five years in prison. Gideon wrote to the Florida Supreme Court and they denied his petition. Then he...
Words: 1105 - Pages: 5
...Historically, what has the right to counsel guaranteed? How did Gideon v. Wainwright change this? Historically, it was customary for individuals to represent themselves during trial. The legal system back then was certainly not the complex web that it is today, so the demand for lawyers was low. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel was considered more of a luxury rather than the fundamental right we consider it to be today. If an individual wanted a lawyer to represent them in court, they would be responsible for finding a lawyer and paying for their services. This classist application of the Sixth Amendment let a lot of people fall through the cracks and “brought about complaints over economic discrimination”. This issue was first addressed...
Words: 378 - Pages: 2
...The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (law). Although the right to counsel is found at the very end of this amendment, it is just as important as the right to a speedy and public trial, or the right to an impartial jury. In 1961, a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in the state of Florida. He requested an attorney because he could not afford one, but this request was denied by the judge. Two years later, the Supreme Court heard and decided on a case called Gideon v. Wainwright, where it was stated that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel was essential to a fair trial. It therefore became unconstitutional to deny counsel to a poor person facing a felony charge. Gideon v. Wainwright was a remarkable Supreme...
Words: 1633 - Pages: 7
...CJ 3352 Assignment 6 – Chapter 8 1. What is notable about the case of Powell v. Alabama (briefly describe what happened in the case). The first case to recognize the right of indigent criminal defendant to court appointed counsel. Nine African American youths were charged with raping two white girls. They were tried in a racially tense environment in which the stat militia had to be called in to protect them from an angry mob. 2. Describe the right to assistance of counsel in pre-trial and post-trial proceedings. The sixth amendment right to counsel was originally viewed as a trial right 3. What are a defendant’s rights with regards to self-representation? The right to waive assistance of counsel and conduct one’s own defense. 4. How does a defendant’s claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel” have bearing on his or her Sixth Amendment rights? The counsels performance was deficient and the outcome would probably have been different had the representation been adequate. 5. With regards to the Sixth Amendment, what are the responsibilities of the police and other agents of the state once prosecution has been commenced? Discuss with regards to the following: (a) warning and waiver of the right to counsel must secure a valid waiver of the right to have control to counsel present during the proceedings. (b) police responsibility to provide counsel police departments specify what officers must do to secure appointed counsel for defendants who lack the means...
Words: 483 - Pages: 2
...Case Citation Gideon v Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Court U.S. Supreme Court Facts Defendant was charged with a felony in a Florida State Court. He was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was not appointed counsel even though he was not able to afford one. He was forced to act as his own counsel and was convicted. He was sentenced to five years in a state prison. Defendant was denied counsel due to Florida Law. The law stated that the only time and indigent defendant would get a counsel was if he is charged with a capital offense. Gideon filed a petition for habeas corpus attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court’s refusal to appoint counsel denied his constitutional rights and rights guaranteed him under the Bill of Rights. The Florida State Supreme Court denied relief. Because the problem of a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel in state court continued to be source of controversy since Betts v. Brady, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to again review the issue. Issue The issue at hand is whether A prior decision of the Court’s, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted Gideon’s petition for a writ of certiorari – that is, agreed to hear Gideon’s case and review the decision...
Words: 280 - Pages: 2
...Law Assignment Question:- 15. The majority opinion in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ____________.a a. admitted that the exclusionary rule, although necessary, violated common sense b. overruled Boyd v. U.S. (1886) c. relied on the imperative of judicial integrity d. incorporated the substantive rule of the Fourth Amendment 18. Illegally seized evidence or statements may be introduced or used for each of the following hearings or purposes, EXCEPT ___________. a. alien deportation b. formulating a grand jury question c. impeaching a witness d. parole revocation 19. Each of the following statements regarding the majority opinion in United States v. Leon (1984) is correct, EXCEPT ____________. a. the Fourth Amendment is not concerned with constitutional violations by judges b. deterrence is the only reason for the exclusionary rule c. the search in the case violated the Fourth Amendment d. the exclusionary rule exacts substantial social costs 20. The affi davit in Spinelli v. U.S. (1969) included every element EXCEPT ___________. a. Spinelli crossed a bridge every day and went to the same apartment b. Spinelli had a reputation as a “bookie” c. the apartment had two telephones d. Spinelli’s bookmaking calls were recorded 23. An argument used in courts to oppose the “plain feel” rule was ____________. a. extending reasons to justify police searches undermine civil liberties b. the sense of touch is not as sensitive as...
Words: 1264 - Pages: 6
...Case Brief #4 I. Citation Montejo v. Louisiana 556 U.S. 778, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009) II. The Relevant Facts Montejo, who was a murder suspect, waived his Miranda rights and was interrogated at a sheriff’s office. He was brought before a judge for a hearing where he was appointed legal representation. Later that day, two officers visited him at the prison and asked Montejo to accompany them to locate the murder weapon, which he claimed he had thrown into a lake. He was read his Miranda rights again and agreed to go with the officers to search for the murder weapon. Montejo wrote a letter of apology to the victim’s spouse during this time, but he did not see his attorney until he had returned to the prison. III. Case History At his trial, the letter of apology Montejo wrote to the victim’s widow was used as evidence to convict him of first-degree murder and to sentence him to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Montejo’s arguments based on Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) and upheld the conviction, stating that Montejo did not make any sort of request that counsel be appointed to him because he stood mute at his preliminary hearing. IV. Legal Issues Did Montejo genuinely waive his right to have counsel present during his interaction with police? Do indigent defendants have to affirmatively accept counsel to prevent future police interrogations without an attorney present? V. The Holding Montejo did not affirmatively accept...
Words: 325 - Pages: 2
...Citation: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Facts: Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses. At trial, Gideon represented himself – he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon’s petition. Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court. Issue: A prior decision of the Court’s, Betts v. Brady...
Words: 484 - Pages: 2
...process became known as the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. During those years, cases concerning the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court's docket. The Warren Court's began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, which was the first of several significant cases that re-evaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to state judicial systems. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturne the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment sets the standards for searches and seizures by law enforcement officials in the United States, the Court noted, and the 14th Amendment requires judges to uphold those standards in every State. Evidence gained by an illegal search became inadmissible in State courts as a result of the decision. The “Mapp Rule” has since been modified, so the exclusionary rule is no longer as absolute as when first handed down in Mapp. Critics of the Warren Court charged that it “had gone too far in interfering with police work.” With its decisions in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Escobedo v. Illinois the Warren Court handed down the bases of what it called the “fundamentals of fairness” standard. At both the State and federal level, the Court sent a clear signal to law enforcement and criminal justice officials....
Words: 2336 - Pages: 10
...Right to Counsel Dimitria Jackson CJA/ 364 Criminal Procedures May 22, 2012 Michael Harrison Right to Counsel One of the most important rights awarded to the accused is the right to be represented by an attorney. Most individuals accused of a crime will most likely not have an adequate defense without the assistance of counsel. The development of the right to counsel in the twentieth century focused on the issue of whether the state had to pay for attorneys for individuals what are indigent or to poor to pay. Because of Powell v. Alabama, the Court found that in particular cases, state courts had to provide free counsel to criminal defendants. In addition, the right to counsel attaches at the initiation stage of the criminal proceedings. Separate from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and prior to the initiation stage, an individual has a Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation as well. Zalman (2008) stated “Counsel is required at a pretrial proceeding if it is one in which factual determination can be made that could determine the outcome of the case and in which a lawyer plays a significant role” (p. 337).The adversarial nature of the trial process makes even routine cases dependant on trained, competent lawyers. A defendant without counsel is at an extreme disadvantage. Development of the Right to Counsel In the past, the right to counsel meant the right to retain counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford an attorney, he had the...
Words: 1214 - Pages: 5
...Right to Counsel Yolette T. Pepe Kaplan University Introduction to Law LS102-03 Prof Young February 15, 2011 Right to Counsel The root of all American laws are found in English law. In England, people who were charged with felonies had no right to hire a private attorney, though it was allowed sometimes in special circumstances. After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, Parliament passed a law allowing people accused of treason the right to be represented by an attorney at trial, but this right did not extend to any other classes of crime. (Find Law, 2010) All the way up until 1836, with the passage of the Prisoners' Counsel Act, this right was denied to people charged with nearly all serious crimes in England. The development of the common-law principle in England had denied to anyone charged with a felony the right to retain counsel, while the right was afforded in misdemeanor cases, a rule ameliorated in practice, however, by the judicial practice of allowing counsel to argue points of law and then generously interpreting the limits of ''legal questions.'' The colonial and early state practice in this country was varied, ranging from the existent English practice to appointment of counsel in a few States where needed counsel could not be retained. Historically, the right to counsel has meant the right to retained counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford a lawyer, he had the right to use one. (Lawyers.com, 2000) The poor defendant was denied this right. In early America...
Words: 1516 - Pages: 7
