In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if 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 if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984). The Supreme Court, Strickland case set the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): the defendant David Washington had pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced to death. During the sentencing process Washington lawyer did not seek any character witnesses and did not request any psychiatric evaluation for his client. Due to this defendant decided to appeal his sentence on the basis of inadequate representation of his attorney a violation of ... ... middle of paper ... ... to 360 months in prison. This case was considered ineffective assistance of counsel for one reason, which was counsel prejudice advice to client to reject a plea offer. In order for Cooper to show his Sixth Amendment was violated, he would have to show three things: (1) The ineffective advice, and that the plea offer would have been present to the courts, (2) the courts would have accepted the terms, and (3) the conviction sentence would be less than the actual judgment and sentence imposed. The outcome in this case changed how the plea bargaining system works. Defendants in criminal proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations meaning when the prosecutors offers a plea the defendant is entitled to be there so if he or she rejects the plea they know its actually coming from the defendant and not his attorney.
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense. The Court ruled unanimously in Gideon's favor and held that the Fourteenth Amendment included state as well as federal defendants. The Court said that all states must provide an attorney in all felony and capital cases for people who cannot afford one. Through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel applies to the states.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
The Kevin Mitnick case was a very interesting case from the late 1900’s. According to CNN, “Kevin David Mitnick -- the most wanted computer hacker in the world, the inspiration for two Hollywood movies and a cyberspace cult hero -- had been scheduled to stand trial April 20 in Los Angeles in one of the most celebrated computer-related cases in history” (Christensen, 1999). The big question in Mitnick’s case was does Mitnick really have a case? Or are his constitutional rights being violated?
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
Imagine getting a ticket and deciding not to pay the fine by the deadline. The court will issue a notice for you to pay for it or you will be charged for misdemeanor. You have the option to go to court and if you can’t afford a private lawyer, then the court will assign you a public defender, or a lawyer appointed by the court of no cost to you.Your right to have a lawyer and a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”).
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Escobedo V. Illinois case had captured the grand stage in 1966 for, a man named Danny Escobedo was denied his rights to obtain a lawyer during questioning by the Chicago Police Department. Escobedo was convicted for shooting and was taken to the police department for questioning. Escobedo had made numerous attempts trying to request a lawyer, but was not provided one violating his Sixth Amendment Rights: “The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in their defense.” Unfortunately, Escobedo had confessed to the murdering which also violated the Fifth Amendment of “self-incrimination” being forced a confes...
The Motion for a New Trial requests that the Court determine whether the Government violated the Nanda Defendants’ Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process by introducing false evidence or withholding material evidence at trial to warrant the Court to grant the motion for a new trial.
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
In illustration to the application of the rights espoused by this amendment, Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr V. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 [2004] is going to be my first case example. In this case, it was held that the right to jury under Sixth Amendment restricts judges from increasing the sentences based on facts other than the jury decides. Lastly, the case of Marc Gilbert Doggett, Petitioner V. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) expounds on the right to a speedy trial. It was held that the eight years between indictment and the eventual arrest of the suspect was in violation of the speedy trial clause.
...you think I need an attorney?” He also asked this question several times thorough the interrogation. In this situation the police officer should have allowed Mr. Wilson to get a attorney after saying “I think I need an attorney?” because this is going against his basic rights and violates the 6th Amendment.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.