In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
Piette had been presented critical evidence in the case that clearly declared his client to be guilty, however, instead of debating he sat quietly and observed. Every time the judge would question the defense comments on the presented evidence, Piette would simply say that his client took no side. Despite what Lieutenant Piette was thinking, he knew that it would be extremely dangerous to the case if he began to debate. Piette’s strategy cause yet again more controversy in the legal field. An Air Force major that was in the court believed that Piette’s strategy was immodest.
“Our courts have our faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” His message was loud and clear but the outcome did not have the desired
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
Countless people are getting placed in the criminal justice system on meager charges. Then, the system offers them “Legal Misrepresentation,” even though Gideon v. Wainwright (Alexander, 2012, p. 85) stated that they are entitled to an attorney if they are accused of a serious crime and indigent. Yet, public defendant attorneys lack resources and are overburdened with a substantial caseload that they cannot give defendants suitable representation. Subsequently, these accused people are forced into a plea deal to offset spending the mandatory maximum sentences in prison. Bad Deal
Prosecutors and defense attorneys routinely use peremptory challenges to eliminate frim juries’ individuals who although they express no obvious bias, are thought to be capable of swaying the jury in an undesirable direction. The prosecution and the defense are also protected by the Equal Protection Clause
Furthermore, if a defendant could provide a “prima facie” case, the ruling could be altered. Prima facie means that if a defendant could present a case of factual evidence to prove a pattern of discrimination in the jurisdiction, then the case can be presented to the court. Swain’s case is important because it presented a significant argument against the use of peremptory challenges. The ruling however, provided not protection for Hispanics or African Americans from racially provoked peremptory challenges. The use of these challenges denies African American’s and Hispanics the chance to be tried by an impartial jury of their peers.
“I’m taking this all the way to the Supreme Court!” In the United States if a defendant feels as though they did not receive a fair trial the court system allows the offended to appeal to a higher court. Likewise, if the next court’s decision is unsatisfactory the defendant can continue to appeal to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. However, the Supreme Court is a vastly different courtroom than a trial court. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright highlights the differences between the Supreme Court and Trial Courts.
Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman.
The conflict was not stolen from them by outside sources, such as the state, and they worked on the issue at hand together. This type of court system proves that are other ways of conducting trials outside of the westernized models we have become accustomed to that don’t allow “professional thievery” (Christie,11) . In the “non- happenings” or Scandinavian court, Christie states that the courts belong to the administrators of law (Christie, 11) , he maintains this point by adding that in the Supreme Court the directly involved parties often do not even attend their own court cases (Christie, 11) . Christie argues that when we allow the state to meddle with our personal conflicts they become property of lawyers (Christie, 11) . This professional thievery of conflict causes the people directly involved in the case, mainly the victim, to become a “double loser” (Christie, 11) where they are overrepresented and denied rights to full participation (Christie, 11) .
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
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