Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Gideon v wainwright analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gideon v wainwright analysis
Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”
Brief Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment on April 18th, 1987. The bullet injured a man in the apartment below Hick’s apartment. Police officers arrived at Hick’s apartment to investigate the shooting. Upon investigating, the police officers seized 3 weapons and a stocking mask. Also, while investigating, one of the police officers noticed expensive stereo equipment.
Shown here in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the court took it a step further by requiring states to supply defense attorneys to all criminals who have been charged with a felony (Gideon v. Wainwright par 5). Clarence was not a free man, however, but he did obtain a fresh trial (Clarence Earl Gideon par 11). With a new attorney to represent himself, known as Abe Fortas, Clarence was found not guilty (Remembering Gideon’s Lawyers page 18). The Supreme Court was rampant with numerous opinions related to the decision.
Berger states: "The important public policy which underlies this tradition—the right to counsel—would be gravely jeopardized if every lawyer who takes an "unpopular" case, civil or criminal, would automatically become fair game for irresponsible reporters and editors who might, for example, describe the lawyer as a "mob mouthpiece" for representing a client with a serious prior criminal record, or as an "ambulance chaser" for representing a claimant in a personal injury
The written story of how Clarence Earl Gideon, a poor Florida man, went from a convicted criminal to ultimately redefining legal history is astounding. The Supreme Court commonly dismisses more cases than it accepts and the fact that a handwritten petition from a prison inmate was accepted shows that even the seemingly most insignificant person can make a difference in our society. The book’s literature is highly legalistic but constantly provides a detailed account of how the judicial system is constructed. Coming from a regular college student standpoint with no previous formal law education, this makes the underlying concept easier to grasp. The story’s setting during the time of the Gideon case, showed how the legal system was constructed towards the growing concept of a defendant’s rights.
The case of Gideon v. Wainwright was argued by the Supreme Court in 1963. This was a Fourteenth Amendment case, centered on the basic right of due process owed to all persons defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue began on June 3rd, 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was accused by an eyewitness of breaking, entering and committing petty larceny in the Bay Pool Hall in Panama City, Florida. Said eyewitness told the police officer on the scene that he saw Gideon in the pool hall around 5:30 am, and reported to observing Gideon for a time until seeing him come out of the pool hall with a pint of wine.
This means that those charged with lesser crimes are pushed to the back of their caseloads. Public defenders are overworked and underpaid meaning that many times they cannot do their job to the best of their abilities. Sadly because of this system, many of their clients sit in holding cells for months or years, awaiting for a trial that is continually pushed off by their attorney. While the system of free public defenders seemed like an equal foot for criminal clients to stand on in the justice system, it is in reality a very messy and disorganized system that overlooks those without the most pressing issue. Gideon V. Wainright was a landmark case, arguably one of the most important cases of the sixties.
David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.
2. You are a new principal and are setting up interviews for a vacant position at your school. You will have an interview team comprised of 3 teachers, a parent and a board/ LSC member. You want to be sure they understand what questions can be asked of prospective employees and what is prohibited from being asked. You are working on the guidelines you will go through with the team regarding appropriate and inappropriate questions.
Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona was a groundbreaking case for the judicial system and law enforcement. It consisted of four cases; all dealing with interrogations: Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In all the listed cases, each defendant was questioned without being given their rights and gave some kind of confession. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping and robbery. The victim picked Ernesto out of a line up, and he was brought in for questioning.
Criminal Justice System The Criminal Justice System is a lengthy process in which those convicted of a crime go through in order to determine the type and time of their sentencing. Crime is breaking any part of the law. Crime can be of various levels of significance depending on the type of crime committed. Misdemeanors, which are minor crimes, can result in under a year in jail/prison.
Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto.
Inadequate defense lawyers have played a great part in wrongful convictions. According to Dr.Emily West, “[T]he most
Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or she is provided. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are underpaid or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial.
Almost all defendants who are given the death penalty sentence could not afford a lawyer, so they were appointed one by the courts. These lawyers are usually ranked the lowest in their class, or can be loaded down with many other cases. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial. In 2001, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 3 "People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty. Quality representation should be mandatory not matter the defendants financial status because the level to which a defendant is represented makes a huge impact on the sentencing for a