Case Study : Ford Vs. Wainwright Case

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the

Finally, the third reason is a breach of warranty claim. The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. Ultimately, Nancy Denny won because the court found that defendant had, “breached its implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries”. Ford may have avoided these liabilities had they marketed the vehicles manual towards off road only, or had they proved product safety was “reasonable” to drive in ordinary circumstances.

Another Supreme Court case which was very popular when it was being tried, and still is today, is the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In this case, which was decided on March 18, 1963, a man named Clarence Gideon was denied his sixth amendment right to an attorney. Gideon was arrested in Florida in 1961 for breaking and entering into a pool hall with the intent of committing another crime there. When he asked for an attorney to represent him because he couldn’t afford one, he was denied of his Sixth Amendment right. When asked why, he was told that by Florida State Law, the only time an attorney is appointed to the accused is when a person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon put together a defense as best he could, and represented himself during trial. As can be expected from a man with no law experience, he lost his case and was found guilty. He was sentenced to five years in prison, until he filed a habeas corpus petition; meaning a petition saying he was wrongly imprisoned (pbs.org). When this case went to the Supreme Court, Gideon argued that he was violated of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, regardless of the status of his case. The Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision, the right to an attorney should be given in all criminal prosecutions (oyez.org). This was a huge case for the criminal justice system simply because it allowed for fair representation for everyone. There were no longer people who went to jail simply because of the fact that they

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Florida. When he went to trial, he attempted to get an attorney to help him in court to get his crime reduced to a misdemeanor. The judge denied the attempt and he was left to fend for himself. Clarence Gideon was later proven guilty. He filed a habeas corpus petition that his denied attempt to an attorney was unlawful. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Gideon sent his petition, in 1963, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case, also known as the Gideon vs. Wainwright case, and decided that under the 6th amendment, the defendant is allowed to receive counsel when the defendant is being tried for a serious crime. The Gideon

Adams did not. (Radelet, 2011). After Adams took the stand and pleaded once again his ignorance of the crime, the prosecution presented a signed document that they claimed was Adams confession; but in reality stated that at some point during the day, Adams had been near the scene of the crime. They then sent to the stand surprise witnesses that the defense was not informed of. The defense intended to cross examine the witnesses but the prosecutions said that they were out of town and would be unable to return. Not surprisingly the jury returned a verdict of guilty; now the prosecution would turn its attention to Mr. Adams sentence (Martin, 2011). Seeking the death penalty the prosecution called on two expert witnesses: psychiatrist Dr. James Grigson, whom was known as Dr. Death, and Dr. John Holbrook, who was the former chief of psychiatry for the Texas Department of Corrections (Radelet, 2011).

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the case begins with Gideon arrest in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who was in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes. On January 3, 1961, 51-year-old Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Giedion was charged with a felony in the state of Florida. Gideon appeared in the Florida court and informed the judge that he would like to be appointed counsel because he could not afford one. The judge denied Gideon’s request to be appointed an attorney. The courts stated that under Florida law the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to be appointed counsel is when

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

In 1963, the Constitution expects the states to offer defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with severe offenses who cannot pay for lawyers themselves, was the Supreme Court ruling for the Gideon vs Wainwright case. Now let’s rewind back to Clarence Earl Gideon’s 1961 arrest. Gideon was accused of breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida and stealing money out of the hall’s vending machines.

Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards

I met with Wayne and Frank on June 30 and they provided me with these extensions of the administrative leave of absence for Michael Kuchar for the period May 22 through June 19. They suspect that they are holding back on reinstating him until they employ a new Assistant to the Superintendent at Cumberland who is a retired state trooper. They pointed out that Kuchar has only been receiving his straight salary and has not received his lost overtime but after consideration we decided that the best route to take would be to file a grievance when Kuchar is reinstated rather than do it now and potential encourage the Town not to reinstate him.

The case of Morse v. Frederick took place in Juneau, Alaska in 2002. At the time, the 2002 Olympics were passing by this town and principal Deborah Morse allowed her students to go out in the street to see the relay (Barnes). One student by the name of Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot long poster with the phrase “BONG HITS 4 JESUS” which infers the use of marijuana. He did this so he could be shown on television. His principal thought this message was not school appropriate to show so she suspended him for 10 days (Barnes). Frederick went on to sue Ms. Morse and the school as he asserted that they had broken his first amendment right (Morse).