Circuit Court Case Study

However the Florida Supreme Court denied the case. Gideon found relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. A writ of habeas corpus is a calling with the force of court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and said that the judge’s refusal to appoint an attorney violated his constitutional rights. However, the Florida Supreme Court still denied his petition. Gideon did not give up. He next filed a handwritten petition to send to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the question of whether the right to counsel or the right to an attorney is guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and applies to defendants in state

In this case, the Department credibly testified to mailing the Appellant a Notice. Although the Appellant stated that she did not receive the Notice, she provided no evidence to show that that it was caused by the Department. Furthermore she testified to her mail carrier placing her mail in the mail receptacles of other tenants as well as other unassigned places. The ALJ finds that errors made by the Postal Service, are not caused by the Department, and therefore finds that the Department had no fault in the non-receipt of the Appellant’s

The Supreme Court determined that Gerald Gault was denied his Constitutional rights based on the 6th Amendment (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). The 6th Amendment was ratified in 1789 and provided the citizens of our country with rights based on criminal prosecution (Staff, 2010). The amendment provides the defendant with a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers, the notification of the charges against them, legal confrontation of the accuser, accessibility of witnesses in a jury trial and defense counsel. After his arrest, Gerald was detained in a juvenile detention center with no notification provided to his parents (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). When his parents finally located him at the center, they arrived

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

were entitled to freedom by virtue. (Lawson, 1987, 21-29) Shortly after this he was found in court getting tried

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most notable for their protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals. All to often we forget it also covers the rights of those persons convicted of a crime. There are two positions when it comes the rights of convicted and imprisoned persons, which are rights-are-retained and rights-are-lost. In retrospect, they are both right because prisoners rights may not be granted rights nor shall rights be withheld that are not supported by law. Therefore, prisoners are given Conditional Rights because they are constrained by the legitimate needs of imprisonment. The Conditional Rights of inmates are communication and vision, religious freedom, access to the courts and legal assistance,

In Walker, the court held that there was no confinement because there was no total restraint of the plaintiff’s liberty. Id. at 936. The court found that the Hankes had built a fence around their yard at Mr. Walker 's request. Id. at 935. After the parties had a falling out about some settlement money, the Hankes placed chains and a lock on the fence to keep Walker’s lawyer out. Id. When Walker let the

Constitution provides that no person shall be robbed without the due process of the law of life, liberty, or property. Enemy combatants may have their Habeas Corpus rights — the right for anyone imprisoned by America to challenge their imprisonment — upheld (Costly, 2017). A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate indicating that an inmate is brought to the court to determine whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully or unlawfully.  A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by individuals or their representatives serving prison sentences. who objects their imprisonment. The petition must show cause that an error in detention was

Subsequently, in 1972 Argersinger v. Hamlin held that defendants were required legal counsel when faced with incarceration from a misdemeanor or felony conviction (Smith, 2004). Following these Supreme Court decisions, most state and local governments had to develop new systems of indigent defense or modify the old ones to keep up with the number of clients (Wice, 2005). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, other cases have challenged the Supreme Court application of the right to counsel. Currently, all defendants are given the right to counsel at all stages of the criminal justice process, including during trial, appeals, and even during police interrogation.

In Monroe versus Pape, the United States Supreme Court ruled that citizens could bring Section 1983 suits against state officials in federal courts without first exhausting all state judicial remedies (Mauer, 2016). It acknowledged the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This act imposed civil liability on any individual who deprives another of constitutional rights (Williams and Arrigo, 2012). This allowed offenders to challenge the constitutionality of the conditions of prison life. In another significant case, Robinson versus California, the Court extended the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to the states. Today, the Court recognizes that offenders do have certain rights. At the same time, the Court confirmed that offenders do have fewer rights than free citizens. It was on the ground that taking away rights is a legitimate punishment and the restriction of rights is a must in order to maintain security in prisons. This was implemented by the Hands-Off Doctrine. It allowed the Rehnquist Court to grant correctional officials the ability to decide what restrictions should be placed on offenders. Another right protected by the First Amendment was freedom of

According to the article titled “Do Inmates Have Rights? If So, What Are They?”, “every inmate has the right to be free under the Eighth Amendment from inhumane treatment or anything considered “cruel and inhumane”. They should have this right because not all of them deserve to be treated poorly or be put somewhere inhumane.

Just as important as the 8th amendment, is another key element to the evolution of prisoner rights, the section 1983 provision to the civil rights litigation. This statute is one of the most common forms of prisoners’ rights litigation. With the use of this law it prevents prisoners from being deprived of their constitutional rights. Litigation in the constitution such as this provision is important to the prison system because it legally protects prisoners who are physically attacked, who need medical treatment, whose physical living conditions in prison are inadequate, or who need to gain access to the courts so that they may challenge their conviction or seek defense counsel. For instance, in Royal v. Durison, an inmate was able to file a section 1983 action claiming that he was detained in excess of the maximum time allotted for the crime he committed. Although the courts ultimately ruled in favor of the defender, they took his request for time adjustment seriously and investigated the matter expeditiously (Corrections Caselaw, 2004). The most common form of inmate claims are typically for medication denial and delays, like in Estelle v. Gamble. Gamble filed a suit against the warden, the medical director and the director of the DOC for the lack of medical care he received after injuring

There are some exciting rulings when it comes parole board hearing and the type of information that can be used. When a prisoner is seeking parole and heave been sentenced to prison and seeking early release. With parole being considered a privilege and not a right.It is intriguing how a person can lose rights. However long ago the court ruled that the due process is one of those things. Once a prisoner enters into the system a prisoner is stripped of many right. However they are still protection under certain rights like the Eight Amendment that grants protection. This protects all prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment. The freedom of speech, religion, and equal protection under the laws, regardless of discriminatory factors. Once a

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES RAISED SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS BODY OF PLEADINGS PRAYER

The Due Process Model of the criminal justice system’s main focus is on fairness during trial. One of the ways this “fairness” is established is through the Due Process Test, also known as the Matthews v. Eldridge Test. This test has three criteria to ensure that the individual has received due process under the Constitution; they are as follows “the balance of the importance of the interest at stake, balances the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and the balance of the government’s interest in the trial” (Matthews v. Eldridge Test, n.d.). This test along with major court cases such as, Plata v. Davis/Schwarzenegger, Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, and Plata v. Brown, have helped to ensure that prisoners are not incarcerated wrongly and that their living conditions are Constitutional. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey discusses the question of whether Yeskey being excluded from being able to participate in boot camp because he had hypertension, was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This discussion ended with the Supreme Court ruling that the exclusion of Yeskey was a violation of this act (Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, n.d.). Plata v. Brown is a court case about the overpopulation in prisons. The prisons during the early 2000’s were severely overcrowded, which led to a multitude of other problems, such as