Gideon V. Negligence Case Study

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.”

A person’s right to have a lawyer and having a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”). Public defenders, or lawyers appointed by the court, provide representation in court without cost to the defendant. Fifty years after the ruling, public attorneys has been under scrutiny by both lawyers and clients. Said counsels are known for facing underfunding and unmanageable caseloads, while their clients claim that they are poorly represented in court.

Gideon v. Wainwright was a very important case for the Supreme Court; it guaranteed the same kind of fair trial in state courts as was expected in federal courts. In 1961 Clarence Gideon was denied an attorney in a state court and he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing this was violating his constitutional right to a fair trial. This was going against a previous decision by a Federal Court of Appeals in 1941. The Supreme Court accepted Gideon's petition and reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1963 the Supreme Court decided in favor of Gideon and overruled the previous decision changing the precedent for all state courts.

The history of the modern right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford to pay for counsel or lawyer goes back over a century ago; the Indiana Supreme Court in Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13 (1853), officially recognized the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime. However, this decision was not based on constitutional or statutory law but warranted under “the principles of a civilized society.” Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the courts have immensely extended the right to counsel beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney. For more than a hundred years, the Right to Counsel Clause was interpreted as simply granting the right to retain a private attorney to a defendant but didn’t mean that a poor criminal defendant had

Gideon’s Trumpet Summary Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering in a pool room. He went to court and got sentenced to 5 years in the state penitentiary he served 2 years for a crime he did not camet .He sent a letter to the supreme court exercising his right that everyone had to have a lawyer. The supreme court decided to let him retake the court and he was found not guilty. This court session was decided that everyone that couldn't afford a lawyer was guaranteed one .

Earl Warren was born on March 19, 1891, in Los Angeles, California. Growing up in financially conservative family, Warren was taught the importance of a good work ethic and education. In his pursuit to attend college, he spent most summers working for the Southern Pacific Railroad; where his father worked. It was working for the railway that would begin to influence Warren’s career.

Court, 1857) 1. Facts: -Dred Scott was a slave taken by his new owner, Dr. Emerson to Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. -This all happened during the time the Missouri Compromise was considered lawful. -When Scott was permitted to marry Harriet Robinson, later the two went to live with Dr. Emerson and his wife.

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

The trial of the Scottsboro boys was a trial that was the cause of two white women accusing nine black men of raping them. Their appeals, retrials, and legal proceedings attracted the attention of the nation and produced to Supreme Court rulings in their favor. The Scottsboro boys trial demonstrates that nonconformity to unjust practices can lead to justice for all people because their trial triggered The Supreme Court ruling that had a major impact on the American system of laws for the right to adequate counsel, the ruling for the right to not be excluded from a jury based on race, and still has a continuing effect in our own time which affirms the principle of equal protection under the law. Their case not only saved them from the death sentence but also started up debate about equal protection under the law such as in the first Supreme Court ruling.

The fifth amendment to the United States constitution should remain just as it is, meaning that no person should be forced to provide incriminating evidence against themselves. And to do so would go against the natural law of self preservation. But by not compelling a person to provide evidence against themselves offers one relief from perjury in order to preserve themselves. The speaker equates not answering to lying which is incorrect, the speakers strawman example of not answering a spouse is an untruth and is an unrealistic example.

Historians have presented many perspectives as for why Leo Frank was incarcerated, which include gender, mass hysteria, and anti-Semitism, with mass hysteria presenting the strongest argument. All these arguments recognize the breach in justice that occurred in the case, but they differ when presenting why this breach in justice occurred. An advocate for the gender perspective, Nancy MacLean, looks at the attitudes of the time and is able to support her perspective, but the argument falters when relating gender to anti-Semitism. The perspective stating that mass hysteria was the driving force behind the guilty verdict is able to effectively explain why the public and police concentrated on Leo Frank and was able to overlook important facts, but fails to address the many appeal attempts.