The Attorney-Client Privilege

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.

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

In chapter seven of Criminal Courts discusses defense attorneys with addition to a section over indigent rights. More importantly it talks about the court case Powell v. Alabama, “The Court concluded that given the seriousness of the charges and the special circumstances present, the lack of counsel denied the defendants due process under the law… Established a right to appointed counsel in capital cases, it did not require counsel to be appointed in noncapital state prosecutions so long as the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair (Criminal Courts, 2017, p. 193). In the documentary over the case we see multiple times that the boys were not properly represented in a court of law in respect to counsel.

Arizona decided that if a person requests counsel and wants to deal with the police through counsel, they can no longer be questioned until counsel is appointed to them, (Holland, p. 392). This was upheld during Michigan v. Jackson regarding criminal defendants who had been appointed attorneys at a court hearing and were later contacted by the police without the attorneys being notified. This court case ruled that any waiver of the right to remain silent would be invalid unless the defendant was the one who initiated the conversation with police. Furthermore, it solidified that even though a defendant waives his fifth amendment rights to remain silent, it does not waive his sixth amendment rights to counsel, (Holland, p. 391). Supreme Court case Montejo v. Louisiana overruled Michigan v. Jackson, stating that the police are able to speak with criminal defendants even when an attorney is already appointed to him if the defendant gave a waiver of his right to counsel. The reasoning behind this ruling is that it is the defendant’s responsibility to assert his right to both counsel and his right to silent if contacted by the police at any point.

Wainwright case was a landmark in the evolution of the criminal justice system as well as the evolution of person rights. Although it is a common phrase, the fact “innocent until proven guilty” is not always enforced in the criminal justice system. This leaves room for people awaiting trial to endure mistreatment, whether they are guilty or not. The mistreatment of these people can sometimes leave room for an innocent person be charged due to the lack of resources provided. Before the Gideon v. Wainwright case, it was not common practice for courts to appoint attorneys for the defendant. Although it was easier to charge someone with a crime they committed without a lawyer present, it also left room for innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not commit. This also raises the question of: is it worth innocent lives to catch the majority of guilty criminals? The sixteenth amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to …have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. Due to the fact that it is not explicitly stated that the court is required to provide the defendant a lawyer, it was hardly common practice to do so. After the Gideon v. Wainwright case, it became more common for the court to appoint lawyers to defendants. This change in practice continued the positive evolution of individual rights, even those being convicted of

Baird in 1853. This case determined that an attorney at public expense would be given to the defendant if they could not afford one. The outcome eventually led to the current amendment that an attorney would be provided for the defendant who could not afford one. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s pro bono groups of attorneys were started to represent defendants who could not afford lawyers. It was primarily a volunteer based program until the mid 1900’s. The Powell v. Alabama case decided that the right to counsel was required in all state proceedings. During the case African American boys were accused of rape and thrown into prison most were sentenced to death and did not have the right to counsel. However after many proceedings and changes in rights the boys were exonerated. In 1963 after the Bretts vs. Brady case it was determined that right to counsel would not extend to felony cases. The defendant was accused of robbery and was not able to afford an attorney. The case decision was overruled in another case in 1963 Gideon vs. Wainwright. Now a felon of any charges could receive counsel at the expense of the state. Over time this rights has grown into the idea that everyone defendant or victim deserves a fair trial and a fair chance of justice. There are countless cases leading up to the right of counsel that is place today. Including the right to a counsel that will give effort and effectiveness towards a

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.

Severance works somewhat differently in federal criminal trials because this case involves the indictment of more than one defendant Jones, Walsh and Bert. In Bert 's situation, his defense attorney will provide an argument that a joint trail might be unfair against Bert or reaching a decision on the rape charges against him. The Severance is not automatic because the Federal rule 14 allows judges broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a severance to Bert. To be successful, Bert’s defense will to fill a motion for his severance which must show the concerns for Bert 's right to a fair trial outweigh the goals of the joinder. One of the most successful grounds for seeking severance for Bert arises when Bert wishes not to testify on all, some or any of the charges in the trail but chooses to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege on one or more charges. The separating by court order, such as separate trials for Bert, Jones, and Walsh who are charged with the same crime, or trying the negligence aspect of the rape charge or any other charge before the trail. Such division of issues in the trail is sometimes called "bifurcation." ("Burton 's Legal Thesaurus," 4E. (2007).

For example many paralegals case research, manage cases and assist with clients. The paralegal must abide by the same client attorney confidentiality. Paralegal must be supervised by an attorney and must abide by limitations

The purpose of rules of ethics that attorneys are obligated to abide by is to protect the Attorney-Client Relationship and enable full disclosure of information that is necessary for lawyers to provide competent representation in favor of their client. Confidentiality and the Attorney-Client

For a lawyer to do less than his utmost is, I strongly feel, a betrayal of his client. Though in criminal trials one tends to focus on the defense attorney and his client the accused, the prosecutor is also a lawyer, and he too has a client: the People. And the People are equally entitled to their day in court, to a fair and impartial trial, and to justice. (p. 166)

In American courts, defendants have three rights: the right to counsel, the right to confrontation, and the right to compulsory process. (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2014) Under the right to Counsel, there are three provisions that govern that defendant's rights which will be the Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2014, p. 252) Indeed, all of these rights are important, in my opinion, the most important is the right to counsel. According to Arroyo (2014), "The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the accused with the right to assistance of counsel for his or her defense in all criminal trials." (p. 1199) This reason alone makes me favor this right over the other ones. This right is fair. It gives anyone accused the right to go get an attorney to help assist with the case before it is heard before a judge. Defendants are given this opportunity if they can afford it or not when it comes to the justice system it is designed to give everyone a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend themselves regardless of the charges.

In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon, was denied his request that an attorney be appointed to represent him. The Supreme Court later reversed his conviction, holding that defence counsel is "fundamental and essential" to a fair trial (McBride Gideon v. Wainwright Par. 2). This case that later came to be known as Gideon v. Wainwright helped shaped the legal system by further defining what rights criminal defendants had. While legal representation back then was only offered by the state to criminal defendants whose crimes were serious, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires states to provide defence attorneys to any indigent criminal defendant charged with a felony (generally a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year) and such was essential to a fair trial (Par. 3). The Miranda Rights are also statements that the court came up with following the case of Miranda v. Arizona after the defendant claimed that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession (McBride Miranda v. Arizona Par 1). These rights therefore protect defendants from self-incrimination and from being subjected to forms of intimidation that compel confessions. It also restricts the authority of the military in taking over civilian homes and protects the citizens from unreasonable strategies of search and seizure. Again, it requires that a person charged with crime should be given due process of law, and that

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).

Attorney Client Privilege, which originated in Roman and canon law, has evolved into a recognized judicial doctrine and is necessary in order to provide clients with access to effective, well informed counsel. In Upjohn Co. v US the Supreme Court the Court