Indigent Court Cases

This week’s readings discussed consequences for special education students. It was very interesting to see the different court case rulings for each case. Teachers, administrators and parents need to make sure they have everything accurate when taking a case like many of these to court. In this paper I will discuss the five key points in the articles and readings stood out to me the most, how and if my beliefs changed or were altered, and how I might apply the content to the classroom and instruction.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

Clarence Earl Gideon, a man with an 8th grade education who caused an influence from within a prison cell. Gideon has been in and out of jail numerous times for nonviolent crimes ever since fleeing from his home while he was in the 8th grade. He was charged with attempted misdemeanor, and was taken to court. He appeared without a lawyer, since he was not very wealthy at all. Infact, he was extremely poor. Gideon requested that he be given an attorney to defend him. According to the 6th Amendment, the accused has the right to a lawyer. However, the court of Florida denied him of it because they said that only citizens that have committed capital offenses have the right to jury. Gideon tried his best to represent himself without an attorney,

3- the defendant(gideon) asked the court to appoint counsel to represent him in the trial,the court denies his request and subsequently informs gideon that the only time the defendant could be appointed counsel was if he committed a capital offense.the judge then tells gideon to defend his case with no council present,and gideon pleads innocent . the court

staff the emergency room operated by the Plaintiff at its hospital facility as evidenced by the on call schedules maintained by the Plaintiff beginning in October of 2011.

In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.

Following the refusal of a counsel to represent him during his trial, Clarence Gideon, an individual convicted of pilfering a pool room in Florida, was found guilty and sentenced to prison for five years. At the time, the trial judge refused a counsel due to the state law of Florida that declared the utilization of a counsel for impoverished individuals who committed a capital offense. However, Gideon believed he was well endowed with the right to be represented by a counsel, for “his conviction violated the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Lewis 7).

It can be extremely difficult at times to provided appropriate and effective legal mechanisms in the area of age of criminal responsibility – that being the important transition from childhood innocence into the maturity and true responsibility that arises in adulthood and its association with the Australian criminal law. In order to deal with the grey area of age of criminal responsibility there are multiple specialised institutions such as the Children’s Court and juvenile detention centres. There have also been significant manipulations to particular pieces of legislation of the criminal justice system in order to clearly differentiate the legal rules of children and adolescents from that of legitimate adults.

In the New York Times article, “A Mockery of Justice for the Poor,” the author discusses how the poor are cheated in the criminal justice system. By law, it is mandatory that the government provides an attorney to any defendant facing possible prison time, even if he or she cannot afford one. However, there are underlying fees that must be paid despite these people being poor. John Pfaff mentions how 43 states are now requiring indigent defendants to pay at least a portion of their lawyers’ fees, even though they had to be appointed one in the first place. Those who do qualify as indignant may be able to be acquitted, however, they could be convicted for failing to pay for the legal services the Constitution requires the states to provide for the defendants. Not to mention, spending money on attorneys for the poor amounts to only $2.3 billion – barely even 1% of the $200 billion the government spends annually on the criminal justice system (Pfaff 2016). Not surprisingly, public defenders who are appointed to these cases are often stripped of resources while tackling multiple other assignments at the same time.

s cases that have been tried by lower courts. Sometimes the Supreme Court returns cases back to lower courts because they don’t think that the case is important enough for their attention. Federal courts involve cases that deal with money or in more extensive things like bank robbing, kidnapping, fraud, treason or etc. Sate courts are arranged depending on the legislature of each state.

There are two standards that must be proven; deficient performance by the attorney and resulting prejudice that if done differently would have proved a different outcome for the convicted. It is extremely problematic that defendants with the money to do so will achieve or exceed equality of representation with the State, while indigent defendants and those with modest means often will not. Your class should not determine the amount of fairness that you will receive during trial and ultimately your freedom. Gideon v. Wainwright made it unconstitutional to do this. but now we see problems with the system that was implemented to combat such unfairness in the justice system. The public defense system doesn’t guarantee that every time you have to utilize their services that you will get an attorney that will act in the best interest of you and this is a problem. There are people who are in jail or have a record because of the representation they were provided with by the State; this is not to shift all of the blame on the attorney because it is the system that needs fixing. When you have the means, you are at an advantage in the courtroom, and this is the exact opposite of the definition of “fair” and

In the criminal justice system innocent people are being wrongfully convicted of crimes that they had no part of. This defies the very purpose of having a criminal justice system. The following research addresses the reasons for wrongful convictions in relation to being represented by public defenders. This is important because once it is determined why wrongful convictions occur when represented by a public defender; reform within the public defense council can be implemented. The average time a person loses in prison or jail that has been wrongfully convicted and later exonerated is 8.8 years of their life (National Registry of Exonerations). This topic can help assure those who are innocent and are being represented by a public defender, will remain innocent. The justice system should not be tailored only to those who can afford private council.

In the poem “Mystery of Inequity” Lauryn Hill explores corruption to talk about crooked lawyers. Public defenders are prime examples of crooked lawyers because they are appointed by the judge to represent alleged offenders if they cannot afford a real attorney. Most of the time if an alleged criminal is represented by a public defender nine times out of ten he or she is going to be found guilty according to either the jury or the judge. They are hired by the government but are supposed to work for the people; which in many cases does not work in the defendant’s favor and causes the person to serve prison time for the crime they did or did not commit at that time. Also, public defenders work with the prosecutors more than they work with the alleged criminal themselves. This is why public are known as crooked lawyers and are not supposed to be in used while an alleged criminal is preparing or on trial because they will most likely ask that person if they want to take a plea deal or also known as a plea bargain; which is the agreement in any criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This

This often results in confusion and misinterpretations of the law (Makin, 2012). The ability to understand the justice system can be very difficult without a lawyer. The amount of information needed in court is demanding and crucial. There is no time for mistakes. Hence, lawyers should be the only people who defend the accused because they are aware of what material is needed and they are prepared for whatever comes their way. Litigants; however, usually do not have professions in law; thus creating mistakes that lawyers would know not to make. This negatively affects self-representatives because they not only have to comprehend their case in order to try to win their argument, but they also have to attend to other aspects in their life, such as their primary job and their family (Gillis, 2013). In other words, their understanding of the law usually interferes with how they react to additional stress and most importantly their judgement. When defendants represent themselves in court, they often have emotional ties with the issue at hand, so their reasoning and perception may be presented inaccurately in the courtroom (Feldstein, 2016, p.10). This can be detrimental to the accused winning his or her case because they are showing the people in the courtroom that they are unprofessional. This inexperience is not appropriate in the courtroom. In order for trials to go swiftly and effectively

At some point in your lives, all of you here are liable to wind up in a courthouse. Traffic ticket, wrongful accusations of robbery, assault, maybe even murder. Not all of you will be able to afford an attorney. But not to worry, ever since the Gideon vs. Wainwright decision, any person who cannot afford counsel is to be appointed public defense. So, unable to afford an attorney, your freedom and reputation will be in the hands of an underfunded, overworked public defense lawyer. But, as is stated on npr.org, “Sometimes people don 't get lawyers at all. Other times they get a lawyer who is so overworked and underpaid that there 's no way the accused can get a real defense.” Did I say not to worry? You should probably worry. Take Alan Crotzer, for example. Alan was accused of kidnapping and robbery. He was poor, indigent, without a single political connection, or dollar to his name. And he was innocent. The legal system failed Alan, who was unable to afford a decent attorney, and spent 24 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. After spending half his life in