Counsel Essays

free of guns? I would counsel CEO Schultz on his idea to keeps that Starbucks location to free gun zone. Starbucks is a place where many people go for relaxing, hang out, for coffee breaks and etc. Starbuck wants to insure the customers' safety, but in Second Amendment people have “....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. If any customer of Starbucks has owned a guns they should keep it out of sight of other people. 2. What about your counsel relative to his idea

Putting you life in the hands of a jury and a judge is something that doesn’t happen much today, but it happened to may people in the 1680’s. Their lives were put into another person’s hands because they were accused for something they didn’t even do. Most of the time these people went into the trials pleading innocent, and then the judge was persuaded to sentence them to death. They did this because they thought that the defendant was lying. This is a perfect example of a crucible. A crucible is

1. Describe your overall impression of the movie and its relevance to a topic or topics we covered and discussed in class. After watching this movie, I think the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of Constitution is as basic as any right listed in the American Constitution, because the threat of imprisonment or even execution is greater than any other threats. Without this fundament right, most of criminal defendants will not have a fair trial and equal protection of the laws, which further

Career and Lifestyle Development – ED 681 Sean Lester – Final Exam What are some of the assessment tools you might use to career counsel someone from your specific population? Explain. • What would you tell a parent if he/she asked you what he/she should consider when helping his/her child plan for a career? Explain. My first inclination to a parent looking to help their child plan for a career is to let them know that their child’s future may not be in the spectrum of current careers we see today

bank in Eustace, Texas. One man, with two pieces of tape on his face, went into the bank, pointed a gun at the cashier and demanded the money. His partner waited outside in a stolen getaway car. Wade and his partner were indicted for the robbery and counsel was appointed. About two weeks later, a FBI agent caused the two men to be part of a lineup consisting of five or six other men at which the bank employees were asked to make an identification, and at which the two men were in fact identified. At

the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials is the application of due process. Due process, according to Tessa McKeown and the Magna Carta, “emphasizes the right to equality of arms between the parties, the right to cross-examination, and the right to counsel.” Equality of arms is the concept that requires both the prosecution and the defense to have a reasonable opportunity to present their case at no disadvantage vis-à-vis the other side. Civil Law procedure (as used in Continental Europe) is inquisitorial

upheld the Sixth Amendment and said that the right to counsel means the right to competent counsel and if the attorney is not competent than the result of the trial is invalid. In the cases, starting with Powell vs. Alabama (1932), Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938), and Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) the Supreme Court has recognized the sixth amendment right to counsel does exists. They stated that it is important for the criminal to have right to counsel to ensure that their fundament right to a fair trial

The post conviction court felt that trial counsel had accurately investigated the possibilities of all mitigating factors, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of relief. Rompilla went on to file a federal habeas corpus claiming inadequate representation. The District Court reversed

sentence be rescinded because his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because he was advised to plead guilty. The ‘effective counsel’ standards were established in this case. The defendant needed to properly prove that the counsel that was given was ineffective. In other words, just because your defense attorney advised you to plead guilty, does not mean that it was ‘ineffective counsel’. The defendant has to prove the causes of the ineffective counsel, such as errors they made, if they acted

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

now receiving the legal counsel they needed, the quality of the legal counsel is not what they deserve. These counsel are sometimes unfit for the trials they are given causing unfair and often wrongful decisions. There should now be a call for state to regulate how counsel is assigned and the quality of these counsel. There are stories of wrongfully convicted citizens all over the United States. One of such story is that of Troy Lee Jones and how he had received bad counsel, which led him to a death

is innocent despite feeling otherwise, both make the Sixth Amendment blurred. This law is needed and used every day. It does not matter what type of criminal activities has been committed by an individual each person has the right of effective counsel and the due process in the court of the people. Works Cited Authenticated U.S.Government Information. (2016). GPO. Retrieved from GPO Goverment: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys Brewer v Williams, 74-1263 (United States Supreme Court March

convicted five years in prison. While being in jail Gideon filed a petition before the Florida Supreme Court declaring that the State of Florida had proclaimed an unfair case trial by denying him his Sixth Amendment the Right to the Assistance of Counsel. The petition sent to the Supreme Court was denied. Next, Gideon did not fall back; he appealed his case to the U.S Supreme Court claiming that putting him on trial without a lawyer was unfair due to the fact that it denied him due process of law

once, unsuccessfully to meet with them; however, he did not follow up a second time. Additionally, the counsel did not seek out additional character witnesses for respondent. The counsel’s conversations with his client led him to believe he did not need to request a psychiatric examination because he did not believe the respondent had psychological problems. In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state

completed the balance of her community service hours. See Exhibit A (attached). In alternative, the defendant, through counsel, moves the this Honorable Court to continue the advisement hearing scheduled for November 5, 2015 on the grounds that counsel has a conflict and is unavailable to attend the hearing on behalf of the defendant. If the Court grants the motion to continue, counsel is available on the following dates:

factors include violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the need for counsel at a revocation hearing (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Moreover, in this case, the court held that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in revocation proceedings (Latessa & Smith, 2015). Furthermore, that the body must determine on a case-by-case basis whether counsel should be afforded, as counsel may not always be granted (Latessa & Smith, 2015). CASE FACTS: Gerald Scarpelli, an

could go and question defendants who had waived their Fifth Amendment rights after they had been appointed counsel, even if counsel was unware of such a waiver. The facts of the case stipulate that Montejo had murdered a person with malicious intent; consequently, he was charged with first-degree murder and appointed a public defender. However, Montejo was likely unaware of his right to counsel – and thus, his Fifth Amendment rights, as the police convinced Montejo to confess the location of the murder

confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to have the aid of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney’s assistance has been focused on two main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and the right to an effective counsel. When the Constitution was adopted, courts in Britain did not appoint lawyers to defendants charged with felonies, opposite to those who were accused of misdemeanors. This practice was not executed by the American colonies and

Court determined that any claim of ineffectiveness of counsel must be judged on whether the entire trial should be considered unjust because the counsel’s conduct was so poor that it failed to allow for the proper application of the judicial process. Next, the Court provided a standard two part test for determining when a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated by the inadequate performance of counsel. Lastly, it protected the legal process from continual

Gideon v. Wainwright: The Right to Counsel Amber Clark Liberty High School 2A Gideon v. Wainwright was a Supreme Court case involving Clarence Earl Gideon, a man who received felony charges in the state of Florida for breaking and entering to commit a misdemeanor offense. The importance of this case lies in the Constitutional questions it dealt with, such as a citizen?s right to counsel, and the resulting decision that gave the right to counsel to all, at any court level. Gideon?s case