The documentary Gideons Army was an eye opening experience which showcases our justice system. Although I have always heard that the justice system is broken I never understood the details until now. The challenges that public defenders face with the resources provided is bordering unconstitutional, in my opinion. When the sixth amendment was created, I don’t believe its intent was to deprive council of time and resources to be “effective representation”.
When 12 million citizens are arrested each year, this invites a great deal of stress into the lives of public defenders who are responsible for 180 to 200 cases at a time. I personally would never put myself in a work environment which lead my hair to fall out and anxiety to take over because my life was being threatened. The realization that people exist like that is daunting. One element that struck me most in the film was when Williams’ co-worker, Brandy Alexander, spoke about representing people who admit to the crime. I had a hard time processing how a father would pride himself in raping his own daughter. I actually rewound the movie because I thought my ears deceived me at the fact he would do it again given the opportunity. Representing a case in that capacity would break me mentally. It was well said that defenders must “go at war with the system even when the client is guilty”.
…show more content…
However, where does personal responsibility for your actions, or your own future begin? We as a nation have cast blame on others for personal misfortune. I can agree that the justice system has areas of improvement, but I disagree that it is completely broken, as this film suggests. People plead guilty to their crimes because there is truth behind the charges. In most cases it is better to plead guilty rather than take the risk of being found guilty at trial and receive the maximum
middle of paper ... ... Works Cited "Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155).". legal information institute, LII. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web.
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
In Gideon's Trumpet Anthony Lewis documents Clarence Earl Gideon's struggle for a lawyer, during an era where it was not necessary in the due process to appoint an attorney to those convicted.
At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.
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
This movie really tied everything we’ve been discussing in class and seeing it unfold was actually really eye opening. I found it important going forward to make sure I do not fall into that tunnel vision mentality and to make sure I follow the evidence rather than fitting the suspect to the evidence. Again, I found it interesting like in the Norfolk Four case and in the Central Park 5 case police neglected to look at surrounding crime areas to see if any other cases matched the same modus operandi. If the police did look at surrounding cases they would have established a link between previous assaults and the assault that took place in the park that night. I was amazed how the detectives did not connect how each of the confessions varied by who did what and how they attacked the victim. It was Korey Wise in the video that kept putting up his hand when asked how big was the rock and he was just moving them back and forth. Police also neglected to look at the attack patterns of where the group first was hassling people in the park. They would have found that the boys were at one end of the park, while the victim was being attacked and there was no way they could have been in two places at once. I also found troubling during the time was the media portrayal of the Central Park 5, how they were painted as vicious young men, who brutally attacked a harmless white women. Even after each one of them was exonerated from the crime the media still portrayed them as vicious men. As we discussed in class, I think a lawyer like a magistrate should be available 24/7 when it comes to juveniles, because I believe that this five did not know their Miranda Rights and what they were entitled. If they knew what their rights were I believe the confessions never would have happened and none of them would have gone to
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...
Throughout the entire film, viewers can witness how Steven Avery is being poorly treated because of his socioeconomic status, and the fact that he is different from everyone in the Manitowoc County. Steven was lied on, picked on, and accused of committing a crime he did not commit, all because he was looked down upon and viewed as being less of a person than everyone else in the community. Watching this episode invokes an emotion that is prevalent today with our justice system. Many minorities are falsely accused and falsely imprisoned due to personal vendettas from private citizens or members of the law enforcement. Others are disfranchised due to their socioeconomic status. Ultimately, there are numerous innocent men and women serving life sentences and are on death row for crimes they did not commit. As an illustration, in the year of 2007, Davontae Sanford, who was just 14 years old at the time, was wrongfully convicted of murdering four people and sentenced 90 years in prison. Sandford was an individual a part of the lower social class, coming from a rough part of Detroit, he was a victim of poverty. He stated how he was such a naïve kid and was coerced by detectives and his defense attorney to confess and plead guilty to murders he did not commit. Sanford told how his attorney commented, “you’re a black kid from the ghetto; these white people from the suburbs are gonna come in here and they’re gonna find you guilty.” He was exonerated June of 2016 after the real offender came forward and denied Sanford’s involvement in the murder. What is exposed as this bigger picture is how the criminal justice system is corrupted, being prejudice and stereotyping individuals based on their socioeconomic status is how the system seems to incarcerate people and sad to say,
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).
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
This demonstrates to us that no matter how much your legal or moral laws are violated, what matters is how you as an individual react to the situation, justly or unjustly. This movie is centered around the notion that if you are a person of ethnic background, that alone is reason for others to forsake your rights, although in the long run justice will prevail
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
After watching this film I felt that the court did not give Ralph Tortorici a fair trial. First of all, Ralph had demonstrated a history of mental illness for most of his life and nothing was done to correct his illness, then the Judge also decided to proceed with the trial despite the evidence from the evaluation of the psychiatrist that Ralph was clearly not mentally stable and he needed to be hospitalized, and lastly Ralph was given an unjust and cruel punishment leading to his suicide due to the lack of help for his mental illness. Through his history of illness, the lack of proper trial and the lack of support for his paranoia schizophrenia demonstrate that Ralph Torto...
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
One of the strengths the movie has been the filming itself. There were barely any cuts in the movie and it was mostly shot in one scene so it made you feel that you were part of the scene. Another strength in the movie was the anonymity that was given to the jurors. This help me realise that these were just the “general public” and that there are many jury’s that are exactly or similar to this. Another strength that the movie showed was that it helped me realise the potential flaw in our justice system. While the accused is still given a right to a fair trial, when you are in a society where prejudice against minorities is considered a norm, it becomes hard looking at things fairly not because you don’t want to but because most of the society is already doing it. For example, in the movie most of the jurors were quick to accuse the boy guilty without deliberation. Another strength is how this movie showed how influential we are to each other. For example, the group dynamic of economic status was big because while the people on the higher economic status looked at the boy with more prejudice, one of the jurors who was