Right To Defendants

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

In 1964, after Miranda 's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person? (Supreme Court)

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.

Constitutional Amendments 4, 5, 6, part of 7, and 8 include our “Due Process” rights. Due process is defined as “a variety of procedural guarantees for those accused of crimes” The 4th amendment includes the right that protects people from unreasonable search and seizure and requires both probable cause and a warrant. It only allows the police to search for the person being arrested, things in view of that person, and things the person can reach that are in their immediate control. The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination. People don’t have to answer any questions that might incriminate themselves and they can “plead the 5th” which means they are refusing to answer because it might incriminate them if they do. People have to be read their Miranda rights when they are being arrested and that lets them know they have the right to remain silent. The 6th amendment gives people the right to council and the right to trial by jury. So if you cannot afford an attorney you will receive a public defender to help with your case. You also have the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of your peers. The 7th amendment protects you from being tried by a jury and then having the court overturn their decision. The 8th amendment protects against cruel and

The three amendments that are used to protect the rights of those accused of a crime include, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Peak, 2015, p.181). The Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and life, liberty, and property. Meaning no person will be forced to be a witness against themselves, they cannot be tried for the same offense twice, and their right to life, liberty, and property are protected under the law. (Peak, 2015, p.193). The Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel. Any person who is accused of a crime has the right to counsel for their defense, a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of their crime which also includes Miranda rights, and to be confronted with the witness against him/her while also having witnesses of their own. (Peak, 2015, p.195). These three Amendments in summary mean to me, that any person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and their rights are just as important as anyone else. They have the natural born right to have their rights as citizens protected under the law, and ensure fair treatment from law enforcement officers.

You also have the right to a speedy trial. If your case is unnecessarily dragged and you are forced to wait for a long time for the trial to begin, your rights may have been violated. Finally, as far as the trial is concerned, you also have the right to a jury trial if you are charged with a serious crime (defined as crimes that carry a penalty of minimum $500 or six months of jail time). This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. If you are accused of a crime, your guilt or innocence will be determined by a panel of citizens. This basically protects you from any discrimination or bias from police officers, prosecutors, and judges. You can waive your right to a jury trial but again, this is your right to do so and not the authorities.

The opportunity to call witnesses and to have the court issue subpoenas to compel the witnesses to appear in this situation the government has to help out by issuing subpoenas to make witnesses appear. We also have access to a criminal defense lawyer. If someone cannot afford to hire their own criminal defense lawyer, a public defender will represent them. This lawyer can act on their behalf before, during, and after the trial. All of these rights are given to us by the 6th amendment and allow us to call upon the government if we need

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 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.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every defendant a right to counsel and to a fair trial. That right is often rationed. Those with financial resources receive the best justice money can buy, while the poor are left with a little justice system valuing expediency over quality, resulting in the majority of cases ending in plea bargains (Love, 2017).

When 15-year-old Gerald Gault was on probation, he and a friend made ‘obscene comments’ in a telephone call made to a female neighbor. At the hearing, Gerald had no counsel. On top of that, the victim, the neighbor, was not present, and there was no evidence presented. He was found guilty and sent to a training school. Personally, I think that the trial was really in violation of due process rights. From what I have learned in the past, all suspects have access to an attorney, and they have a right to be able to face the victim in their trial. Having Gerald adjudicated delinquent and sending to a training school was unfair to him. He had an unfair trial, and therefore should have had the option to be retried with the victim and an attorney present.

Their role is to represent the defendant directly after he/she is arrested ensuring that none of their civil rights are violated. They also engage in “testing the strength of the prosecution’s case, taking part in plea negotiations, and preparing an adequate defense to be used at trial” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 293). In this case they were not giving all the evidence that was collected by the lead investigator, and therefore, never had a real chance to prove to a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tim was indeed innocent of this crime. They also were not there during the intense interrogation performed by the investigators as is his right. Although Tim was only 16, and his father allowed them to question his son without him present, Tim himself should have been informed of his right to counsel.

Interestingly, prior to 1932 the Right to Counsel Clause merely meant that you could hire an outside attorney to represent you in court if you chose and could afford to do so. In Powell v. Alabama, (1932), all that changed when the Supreme Court ruled to establish the right to counsel in capital cases stating that an attorney should be appointed to a defendant who otherwise could not afford one or who is incapable of making their own defense. This ruling however, only applied to Federal government. In 1938 under Johnson v. Zerbst the Supreme Court ruled that defendants have the right to an attorney even if they do not have a clear understanding of that.

In an ordered society, justice is necessary for everyone must be treated fairly. Regardless of a bad action or crime a person commits, they must receive a fair trial. Within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, the sixth amendment states that one has a right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Within The Eumenides, Athene is the voice

Everyone accused has the right to legal assistance of counsel of his or her own choice. Defense counsel is mandatory in all criminal cases involving serious crimes, regardless of the financial situation of the accused. The defense counselor is appointed either at the request of the accused or chosen by the court from a body of qualified lawyers previously