Gideon Vs Abraham Case Study

In the Old Testament, Abraham and Moses were two very prominent leaders chosen by God to do his will. Throughout Genesis and Exodus, both men play important roles in fulfilling God’s will. They are put to many tests, given covenants, and communicate constantly with God. Although they have many similarities such as being leaders and men of God, there are also many differences between the two.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

Two years prior to Miranda, the Court held in Massiah v. United States that indicted defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel were violated were federal agents, acting in collusion with his co-defendant, deliberately elicited incriminating information from him, in the absence of his counsel, after his indictment. The court stated that the surreptitious nature of the interrogation made the violation even more serious. Thus, the government violated Massiah’s Sixth Amendment rights when it used an informant to elicit statements from him after he was indicted. Massiah did not know that he was speaking to a government informant and thus there was no issue of waiver of the right to counsel. Waiver first arose in Brewer v.Williams. The

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that if a defendant is not provided an attorney after requesting one, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, any statements or confessions are not admissible as evidence. Courts have consistently upheld that if a defendant’s request for counsel is vague and ambiguous the state is still Constitutionally bound to provide him with an attorney.(State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537 (2013). citing State v. Bell, No. E2008–01499–CCA–R3–CD, 2010 WL 3612751, at 24 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept. 17, 2010) … et al.) Tennessee is no exception; as recently as 2013 the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that education, intelligence, language or other barriers are not an excuse to deny accused persons their

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

Prior to Miranda vs Arizona, Gideon vs Wainwright had clarified a defendant’s right to counsel, this was also later solidified in Escobedo vs Illinois. The Miranda Court upheld these ruling due to its primary concern being with “procedural safeguards” and ensuring that all defendants had a fairer trial.

Gideon was condemned to five years in a Florida state prison. Subsequently, Gideon began studying law, in the prison library, which led to him believing that his entitlements were disregarded when he was deprived of his request. From his prison cell, he filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court. He requested to be liberated since he was illegally incarcerated. His petition was refused but that did not hinder Gideon’s battle for freedom. He composed an additional petition, to the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting to plead his situation. He proclaimed that the trail court’s verdict violated his constitutional right and his rights ensured under the Bill of Rights. The Court unanimously pronounced in Gideon’s favor,

The Fifth Amendment defense that was espoused by the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave birth to two basic measures that would protect an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights and they were: they have the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel provided if they cannot afford one. The court also set in place another protection for citizens which were “privilege against compelled self-incrimination by requiring LEOs to provide certain warnings and obtain a waiver from a defendant prior to custodial interrogation” (Myers, 2010, para. 2). Thereby, if a person invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel, then all interrogation must stop, unless their counsel is present.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial, an impartial jury, that the accused can confront witnesses against them, and that the accused must be allowed to have a lawyer (Mount, 2008). The right to a speedy trial has three advantages according to the case United States v. Ewell. The three advantages that resulted from this court case include the prevention of excessive incarceration, minimize anxiety experience by the accused as a result of a public accusation, and prevent damage to the defendant’s case resulting from too much delay. The right to counsel applies after

The reversal of Miranda’s case set forth the start to a new, and controversial, perspective on citizen’s rights within the law. While incarcerated, Miranda heard about the Gideon v Wainwright case court decision, which established that any person on trial had a constitutional right to legal counsel for felony charges in state courts. Inspired by this, Miranda sought new counsel and appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 22, 1965, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, which orders the lower courts to deliver records from a case so that the higher courts can review it. Within the court, Justices reviewed Miranda’s confession in light of the Fifth amendment; they also examined the Sixth amendment, right to counsel as

Yes, according to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution every defendant have the right to an attorney or the Assistance of the legal counsel.

The police may not interrogate a suspect again if he has requested an attorney and even if he waives that right later. This condition was produced by another landmark case, Maryland v. Shatzer, where the suspect invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel

In the beginning of the film, Clarence Earl Gideon is accused of breaking into a Bay Harbor poolroom around 5 am on a June night by a witness. The witness claimed that he saw Gideon leave the poolroom with a bottle of wine in his hands. Inside the poolroom a cigarette machine was broken into, beer and wine were missing, and money was taken from a jukebox. Gideon was soon taken into custody. During the trial, Gideon realizes he will not be served a lawyer due to the case type and that he must defend himself. After both Gideon and the prosecutor make their final arguments, the jury finds Gideon guilty and he is sentenced to five years in prison. Soon, Gideon begins research on getting his conviction overturned. His research leads him to the conclusion

One specific case would be Gideon Vs. Wainwright in 1962. In this case Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted and didn’t have enough money to obtain a lawyer. He asked for an Attorney, but he didn’t get one because the court denied his request. They considered the question if this violated Gideon’s right, so they unanimously decided that Gideon should be appointed an Attorney, and he was given one. This case is an example of the Sixth Amendment right of getting an Attorney if you cannot afford one (“Rights of the Accused”, np).

     Abraham stands as one of the most important figures in the Hebrew Bible, and is central to the understanding of God’s solution to the problem of mankind. Man, the mysterious creature that God wraught as a semi-experiment, is constantly prone to believe he is self-sufficient and capable of survival without God, the central problem God must deal with in the Hebrew Bible. To solve this problem, God decides to strike fear in the heart of man and to revolutionise his lifestyle by creating laws and empowering a chosen group of people, who will spread the word of God by example. These people are the Hebrews, and Abraham is the father of their race, the man from whom all