1. The case at hand is Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1962). The plaintiff was Clarence Earl Gideon and the defendant was Louie Lee Wainwright, the Secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections. 2. This case overruled Betts v. Brady and held that the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial. Failure to provide an indigent defendant with an attorney is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it unconstitutional. 3. At issue was whether the Sixth Amendment constitutional requirement that indigent defendants be appointed counsel should be made obligatory to all states by the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause. On August 4, 1961, $5 in change and a few bottles of drinks were stolen from the Pool Room, a pool hall/beer place that belonged to Ira Strickland. Henry Cook, a 22-year-old resident who lived nearby, …show more content…
Such an offense was a felony under Florida law. When Gideon appeared before the state Court he told the court that he was indigent and requested the Court appoint him an attorney, asserting that “the United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel.” The Florida Court said that the issue at hand was a state issue, not federal. They also said if the practice of only appointing counsel under "special circumstances" in non-capital cases sufficed, that thousands of convictions would have to be thrown out if it were changed, and that Florida had followed for 21 years "in good faith" the 1942 Supreme Court ruling in Betts v. Brady. Gideon proceeded to a jury trial, made an opening statement, cross-examined the State’s witnesses, called his own witnesses, declined to testify himself, and made a closing argument. The jury resulted in a guilty verdict and Gideon was sentenced five years in state prison. While serving his
Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The movie starts off with Gideon being charged with petty theft and going to court. Gideon is considered a have-not; he is extremely poor and barely literate. When he gets to court, he asks the judge to appoint him a lawyer because he cannot afford one. The judge denies this, saying that in Florida the only time the court can appoint council is if the defendant had committed a capitol offense. Because of this, Gideon is unable to provide a solid defense and is declared guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Being a have-not, the judge’s decision to not appoint Gideon a lawyer wasn’t even
The case of Ford V. Wainwright is a Supreme court case of the United Stated argued in 1986. Alvin Bernard Ford is the plaintiff in this case, In 1974 he was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. In 1982 Ford began to show signs of a serious mental disorder. The Governor of Florida then appointed a panel of three psychiatrist to determine if Ford was component to understand the nature of the death penalty and the crime he had committed. All three psychiatrist disagreed on his exact diagnosis but agreed that he was sane and knew the nature of the death penalty. Ford’s attorney unsuccessfully sought a hearing in the state court for determination of his competency and then filed a hebeas corpus petition, which is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court especially for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty. The Florida courts denied his petition and signed a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford then sued Louie L. Wainwright, the defendant, who at the time of the case was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Correction.
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
Gideon did a horrible job of defending himself in court. He was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which was a felony. Gideon was sentenced to five years in Florida State prison mostly due to his prior...
Clarence Earl Gideon asked for an attorney when tried and found guilty of a minor offense, he was then denied, found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. The perspective is entirely focused on the legal issues surrounding the case, and it gives an overall look at societal and legal trends during the 1960s. The final chapter is utilized to make a general statement about the role of the Supreme Court in American society. Lewis concludes the book with an argument that he makes in the beginning of the book, his belief that the Court both reinforces and shapes the values of society. Like the case, Gideon’s Trumpet is an instrumental to American society. It can be argued however, that the work may be too dense. At 250 pages it includes multiple court cases, examples, Supreme Court cases and rulings from around the world. There are aspects that humanize the story, like Gideon’s original hand-written petition to the Court (p. 4), Gideon’s letter to his attorney telling the story of his life (p. 47-58), Gideon’s life as described in chapter seven (p. 100-106). It is an interesting read on the appellate process and is very much educational and
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961 and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit theft, by taking money out of vending machines. What he did at the time was considered a felony. When it came time to have the trial he did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to defend him. The judge denied the request saying that under Florida state law counsel can be appointed only in a capital offense. Since Gideon didn’t have a lawyer and was not educated to defend himself he lost easily to the prosecution. Gideon was then sentenced to five years in prison. He then filed out a writ of certiorari, which is a petition of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for them to review his case. The Court granted Gideon's request and appointed Abe Fortas to represent him as his lawyer.
On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary for our understanding”(Lewis 35). It is reasonable to assume that the Court would not spend an exorbitant amount of time going through mounds of paupers’ petitions trying to find a case that seemed presentable. Statistically, about thirteen percent of petitions for certiorari on the regular docket are paupers’ petitions. In addition, only three percent of paupers’ petitions end up being granted. Nevertheless, Gideon’s case was treated just as equally as any other in forma pauperis case. Gideon’s handwritten documents were held for a month until Florida authorities replied to petition. A month passed by and Gideon’s petition was mailed to the office of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1962. A conference was held in June to discuss whether or not Gideon’s petition should be granted. Gideon’s case was granted three days after the conference and from that day forward Gideon’s fight for justice would ensue. In the eyes of Gideon, an attorney was a fundamental right of due process. However, his biggest ch...
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).
Lewis V. United States 1980, Lewis was charged with a felony during 1961 in Florida after breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He then proceeded to serve a term of imprisonment were is felony was never overturned or returned back to court. In 1977 George Calvin Lewis was then arrested once again in Virginia for the possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U. S. C. App. ｧ 1202. Lewis took up the defense that ...
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
The sixth amendment is indeed a right that carries tremendous importance with its name. It constitutes for many protections which Mallicoat (2016) summarizes by saying it “provides for the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Provides the right to be informed of the nature of the charges, to confront witnesses against oneself, and present witnesses in one’s defense. Provides the right to an attorney.” Having an impartial jury of one’s peers is extremely important in efforts to eliminate bias and a subjective, limited range of mindsets. If this cannot be obtained in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, one may request trial to be held elsewhere, such as in the case
Wainwright also hindered federalism because it gave more rights to the individual people rather than the state government. After the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, Tobias Simon, a lawyer from the Florida Civil Liberties Union that offered to represent Gideon the second time the case was tried, reflected on the fact that “‘in the future, the name “Gideon” will stand for the great principle that the poor are entitled to the same type of justice as are those who are able to afford counsel’” (Lewis 239). Rather than before where the states decided what an accused person’s fate is when deciding if he or she should have a counsel, the power is shifted to the individual: it is his or her decision if he or she wants a lawyer. Furthermore, it is guaranteed to every individual, regardless of identity. Because “the poorest and least powerful of men--a convict with not even a friend to visit him in prison-- can take his cause to the highest court in the land and bring about a fundamental change in the law”, the state courts’ authority to determine right from wrong is diminished because any individual can fight it by bringing it to the Supreme Court’s attention, just like Clarence Earl Gideon did (Lewis 218). Every individual now has the power to address a problem created by the courts and the power to determine if they want a lawyer to help them, which, in turn,
There was a big change in 1963 when the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright transformed the way state courts applied the right to counsel to indigent defend...