The right to appointed counsel in decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
From the Judiciary Act to incorporation doctrine
In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the US Supreme Court stated in the name of Chief Justice Earl Warren that “…He [accused] has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation” (Harrison, 2006, p. 68).
Nevertheless, despite obvious necessity of a counsel to ensure the due process, the right to counsel has long-standing and ambiguous history in the United States.
Back to the 18th century, the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Section 35) gave defendants in federal cases the right to counsel and most states had similar law (Holmes, 2012, p. 110). Therefore, the intent to establish certain rights for accused due to proposed fundamental fairness of criminal process can be found at the very beginning of the young American republic. However, it stated just the right to have a counsel. The government was not supposed to appoint one.
In the following year the Federal Crimes Act of 1790 gave a ruling that “Congress imposed a duty on federal courts to assign counsel in capital cases, and […] custom developed in most federal courts to appoint counsel for indigent in all serious crimes” (Urofsky, 2001, p. 170).
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Sixth Amendment and its particular clause pertaining to a counsel state that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”. Regardless of its unquestio...
... middle of paper ...
...decisions of the United States Supreme Court II. Carlsbad, CA: Excellent Books.
Holmes N.J. & Ramen C. (2012). Understanding the rights of the accused. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing.
Newman R. (1994). Hugo Black: a biography. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Urofsky M.I. (2001). The Warren Court. Justices, rulings, and legacy. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Vile J.R. (2010). Essential Supreme Court decisions. Summaries of leading cases in U.S. Constitutional law. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield publishers, INC.
Table of cases
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States. To begin with, the United States’ Supreme Court is the utmost federal court in the government, established with precedence over the lower court system. It has appellate jurisdiction over all cases concerning the Constitution and/or federal law. For a case to reach the Supreme Court, the conflict is required to be between two or
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest
Supreme Court Cases: Rights of the Accused The Supreme Court dealt with different issues such as the Rights of the accused in cases such as the Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, and In Re Gault in 1967. In the Gideon v. Wainwright, which began when Gideon “was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law”(Facts and Case Summary-Gideon v. Wainwright). Once the trial began, Gideon asked the judge “to appoint
MIRANDA 2 The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court
Miranda Warnings You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic
The US Supreme Court was created in Article III of the Constitution and has the ultimate authority on the interpretation of constitutional law and is therefore deemed the highest court in the nation (USSC). The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who review cases from lower courts throughout the nation and rule on the constitutionality of the issues (Urofsky, 2001). The Supreme Court plays a large role in the American legal system because its rulings become law
been met with obstacles established by their very own government. These roadblocks,” large or small, can infringe on basic civil liberties ensured by the Constitution. The case of Korematsu v. United States took place during a pivotally important time in our nation’s history. A few years prior to the Supreme Court case, the U.S. entered into World War II wit the bombing of Pearl Harbor. On February 19, 1942, a mere two months after the Japanese offensive, Fresident Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the
it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social
While they had all acted in concert to reach this decision, their memories of colonial life under the centralized British monarchy had lasting effect upon their views of what the federal government of their new republic would have the power to do. In the years following the Declaration of Independence, Congress came up with the Articles of Confederation to loosely govern the new republic at the federal level. 1781 found all 13 states ratifying the Articles of the Confederation as well