Clarence Gideon was born on August 30, 1910 in Missouri. He was raised in a strict household, so at fourteenth years old he ran away from home then later returned and his mom had him arrested. Gideon then broke out of jail and broke into a store to stay warm and was arrested because he was convicted of stealing. After 1928 he lost his job and began to commit more crimes like, robbery and etc. Later after serving ten years in prison during the Great Depression because of the robbery, he moved to Florida and tired opening up a pool hall business but it failed. After that the case of Gideon v. Wainwright came about. Gideon was charged with a felony of breaking into a pool room with intent of a misdemeanor on January 15, 1963 in Bay County Circuit …show more content…
This case violates the sixth amendment which guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury. It violates the sixth amendment because in Gideon’s first trial he was not appointed a lawyer when asked because Florida law stated that, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases but any US law over rules any state law if they state different rights. The events that lead to this case going to the Supreme Court was that Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition (used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment is lawful). Also he argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. After these events leading up to the Supreme Court decision they finally decided on March 18, 1963 that states are required to provide legal counsels to defendants charged with felony. They made this decision because they realized that since Gideon didn’t have a full education ( he only had one until the 8th grade) they saw that this violated a rule that was already in the US
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
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
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
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
In Gideon's Trumpet, Anthony Lewis documents steps that Gideon took to ensure he received justice. This began when Gideon first sent a respondence letter to the Supreme Court on Janurary 8th, 1962.
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 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...
Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment-Rummel, Solem and The Venerable Case of Weems v. United States. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1984:789. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2886&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2886%2526context%253Ddlj%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0U6qTJJcBT1EoWmQVHDXIojJgBHw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2886%26context%3Ddlj%22
George Corley Wallace was born on August 25, 1919. While attending Barber County High School, he was involved with boxing and football. George even won the state Golden Gloves bantamweight championship not once but twice. Wallace then attended the University of Alabama Law School; this was the same year his father died. Wallace was strapped for cash, so he worked his way through college by boxing professionally, waiting on tables, and driving a taxi. He received his degree in 1942 from the University.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
Early in his career, Drummond defended two teenage child murderers and helped them escape their consequences. Due to this act, he entered Dayton surrounded by strong feelings of hatred. After his scientists were refused a spot on the stand, Drummond was enraged. Henry decided to put Matthew Harrison Brady on the stand to question him. “I call to the stand one of the world’s foremost experts on the Bible and its teachings – Matthew Harrison Brady” he insisted (Lawrence and Lee 82). After Cate’s verdict was announced, Drummond appealed it, causing it to be sent to a higher court. All these actions resemble the same activities of Clarence Darrow during the Scopes Trial. Clarence Darrow was frowned upon because of his success while taking on the teenage murderer’s situation. When he put William Jennings Bryan on stand, the crowd was shocked by his unorthodox action, but he knew exactly what he was doing. “On the seventh day of the trial, on a platform outside the Dayton, Tennessee courthouse, he called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as an expert on the Bible” (“People & Events” 1). His plan worked, allowing him to reduce the sentence to a reasonable consequence, but he was still unhappy about the verdict. He requested that the case be taken to a higher court in hopes of reversing the outcome. All in all, Henry’s actions are a near mirror image of Clarence’s.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
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...