I have chosen cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona Podcast to expand on. In the case Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarance Earl Gideon was a man that didn’t have a very long education, he went until eighth grade and then ran away from home while in middle school. All of his early adult life he spent going in and out of prisons for crimes that weren’t even considered violent. Clarance was then accused of breaking and entering, stealing money out of the vending machines in Panama City, Florida. In his trial, Mr. Gideon requested that an attorney be appointed to him seeing as he could not afford one, the judge of his trial then told him attorneys only get provided for those whose cases would result in the death penalty if they were to be
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.
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.”
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
Miranda was tried and found guilty, he was sentenced to serve 20-30 years in prison for kidnapping and raping. Miranda appealed and the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court. Arizona’s Supreme Court heard the case and affirmed the decision of the lower court stating that “Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel”. (oyez.org) Once again, Miranda appealed to the United States Supreme court, the highest court in the United States of America. The United States Supreme court was not obligated to take the case, however, it took take the case.
This posed two main Constitutional questions: Do non-capital felony defendants still get the sixth amendment?s right to counsel in state courts? Should all states have to provide counsel in their courts for indigent defendants just as federal courts do, no matter what type of case it may be? (Street Law, 2012) The case of Gideon v. Wainwright helped bring into light and define the full rights of the accused. Through dealing with the sixth amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it focused on the key aspect of appointing counsel for any defendant, and made one way our country handles criminal justice synonymous between state and federal
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.
Imagine yourself struggling with financial problems. You get put into court and was denied an attorney when requested for they believe you can defend yourself with no degree in law at all. When unable to respond properly you get put into jail just cause you couldn’t representing yourself. Well that is what Clarence Earl Gideon experienced and had to argued for on Jan 15, 1963.
The Supreme Court understood that in “in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, which is poor to hire an attorney, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided. The second trial finally occurred in 1963, were Gideon was found not guilty and was appointed by an attorney. Gideon was finally, set free acquainted by the Supreme Court jury. In contrast with the two trials Gideon faced an intense hardship. As the first trial occurred Gideon did not have a lawyer to his defense, the witnesses who testified on his behalf did not help prove his innocence in not being guilty; nor did Gideon know how to work the stance position towards his case.
Obviously, his case went to the Supreme Court after studying the laws in jail. After the retrial, the outcome of the court is that the state is required to appoint an attorney to the defendant, if the defendant cannot pay for one themselves and they ask for one. Also, the state has to appoint attorney if the no matter the type of crime the defendant is being charged with. (Gideon v. Wainwright).
Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.