Clarence Earl Gideon was an indigent living in Florida who was accused of breaking into the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida with the intention to commit petty larceny. He had to represent himself at trial since he was poor and Florida did not provide state-funded attorneys for indigents. Once the case was taken up by the Supreme Court, it was affirmed by unanimous decision that anyone had a right to counsel. In Betts v. Brady which Gideon’s case overturned, Betts was an indigent accused of robbery who, when he asked for counsel at his trial, was denied. He later appealed his case up the court system and eventually to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, due to such actions, he had been held illegally.
Interrogation Assignment This documentary showcases a number of police interrogations that are problematic. The one that I believe is the most egregious is the interrogation of twelve year old Thomas Cogdell in the murder of his little sister, Kaylee. His entire interrogation was one big violation of his constitutional rights, not to mention it verged on psychological torture.
Smith, 437 Mich. 293 (1991)). Upon, his sentencing the Judge did allow for his juvenile criminal record to be a part of his sentencing report and a factor in the sentencing guidelines for his sentence. Smith’s juvenile criminal records did show that he had six felony offenses as a minor, these felony offenses did heighten the penalty and give Smith above the number of felonies required for an offender to be determined as a habitual offender. As stated above, Smith appealed the conviction and the sentence, where the appeals court did uphold the conviction but did reject the sentencing and order a new sentence hearing for Smith. The State of Michigan then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan on the decision of the lower
For example, a man who was the lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that constitution is colorblind because in the Civil Right citizens are equal each other even they are black or white. Not only that, Harland did not agree that legislature could not distinguish the race between people which involve civil right, he said that the justices did not deserved to hold the law when they were senseless. Despite Plessy and his lawyers provided all the argument about his case that him did not violation the law, they still could not change whatever the court decided about the Separate Car Act. The court showed that the Louisiana can process the law Separate Car Act.
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013)
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.
First of all, Marbury had the right to his position along with the other plaintiffs (Oyez). This was already proven and Marbury being entitled to his position basically says that he had the right to his position. Marbury therefore has the right to his position as a D.C. justice of peace. In addition, the court also found that if these rights of appointment are denied, then these officers are allowed to sue in court (Oyez). Since Thomas Jefferson told Madison to not deliver the commissions, he is therefore denying Marbury’s right to his position.
In 1993, Christopher Simmons, age 17, and an accomplice plotted, and went through with, the murder of Shirley Crook. He was put on death row for this crime, but he made his way through the courts and eventually won his case (Roper v Simmons, 2005). Simmons argued that offenders under the age of eighteen should not be sentenced to death (Casebriefs). While the crime that he committed was definitely reprehensible, the death penalty for criminals under the age of eighteen are immoral and should not be used. Individuals under the age of eighteen do not have fully developed brains.
In the aftermath of Tom’s attempted escape from prison, which eventually led to his death, “Maycomb was interested by the news of Tom’s death for perhaps two days,” (240) as it was “typical of a nigger’s mentality to have no plan, no thought for the future, just run the blind first chance he saw” (240). The author’s application of this description distinctly portrayed how Maycomb’s warped perspective of Tom’s death was achieved through the racism that inspired many to believe all African Americans were stereotypical criminals and in Tom’s case it was no different. Critically, Maycomb’s prejudice shines through in this description of its lack of sympathy towards an innocent African American’s death and highlights ignorance as an alarming after effect of racism. Before the court had begun to issue its final verdict, ““Atticus had used every tool available in court to free men to save Tom Robinson, but in the secret courts of men’s hearts Atticus had no case” (241) as “in our courts, when it’s a white man’s words against a black man’s, the white man always wins,” (220). The author’s description of the court’s ruling was definite and expected because as Atticus explained, society is biased, therefore the court of all white men were always partisan towards voting in favor of a white man without allowing any arguments against him to sway them.
So he did not have a lawyer and he did not know he had the right to have an attorney present. He was an immigrant so he did not have the knowledge of this anyway. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. Since he was not informed of his rights the charges was let go.
MILLERSBURG — Two evaluator say he is not guilty by reason of insanity, now it’s up to a judge to make a final finding in the case against a Millersburg man who allegedly wrote threatening letters to three deputies and a judge while incarcerated in the Holmes County Jail in December. Rhett Neville, 43, of 10489 Township Road 262, previously entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to four counts of intimidation. Since, Neville has undergone psychiatric evaluations and two doctors have expressed opinions he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The consistency of the two evaluations, according to court discussions has brought the case to a point where defense attorney Andy Hyde said
In another way, the court case of Mallory v. Hogan is the right against self-incrimination in the fifth Amendment. William Mallory was found guilty and sentenced to jail with a fine. But, it was suspended and the court placed him on two years probation. However, within the time period of the probation, the Superior Court "appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County." Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself.
Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961
On October 1, 2003, Dawna Cantrell was arrested and charged with the murder of her husband and two counts of tampering with evidence. Ms. Cantrell’s competency was questioned after evaluation by the defense expert, Dr. Eric Westfried. After subsequent evaluation by the state’s expert, Dr. Edward Siegel, both experts found that Ms. Cantrell had a “persecutory delusional disorder” and that her mental illness precluded her from assisting her attorney in her defense. The trial court found her incompetent to stand trial and ordered a dangerousness evaluation.