The Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

The court case that I chose, Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens took place in 1990. A girl named Bridget, who was a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska wanted to start a religious club for kids in her school. When she brought her idea to the principal of the school, he denied her request for a religious club, and said that it would be illegal to have a religious club at a public school. Bridget tested her principal, and the case was brought to court. Her lawsuit became the Supreme Court's test case for another big case that they were dealing with.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

It was more than this though, this was a test case, to see if the court would prosecute

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and

     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

Supreme Court of the United States decision on the King v. Burwell case was a 6-3 decision in favor of Burwell. One major point that the majority touches upon is the fact that the statement “an exchange established by the state” is in fact an ambiguous statement. The ACA directed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to set up federal exchanges for any state that refuses to set one up. With the specific phrase “such exchange” to define the government's exchange program set up in Virginia means that federally and state run exchanges are interchangeable entities. Now that the phrase had been deemed ambiguous language, the next question to answer is, “whether one of the regulation's permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that

The case Betts v. Brady is almost identical to Gideon v. Wainwright. Betts was charged with robbery in the state trial court. In his case, he did not have money to afford an attorney and requested to be appoint one from the court. The court denied this request as, the states law only appointed counsel to serious crimes such as “murder’s and rape cases.” He proceeded without an attorney and represented himself. The judge’s verdict was the defendant was guilty of the crime and he was sentenced to “eight years in prison.” Betts case did not have a jury involved, it was the judges ruling. Betts appealed stating he was denied the right to counsel and therefore denied him the right of his fourteenth amendment. The ruling was affirmed and came to

The case Barker v. Wingo (1972) was the prime reason why the Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act. Two other cases that come to mind are Doggett v. United States (1991-1992) and Zedner v. United States (2006).

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).

In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, the courts focus for upholding Lucy’s claim of assent, thus, establishing a legal and binding contract to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50,000, was established in part due to the conditions of “objective intent” being met. The court discerned that Lucy’s objective intent was founded in the fact that Lucy had every intention of meeting the conditions of the mutually negotiated and accepted contract which was written and signed by both parties. In establishing the objective intent, the court only needed to look at whether or not the contract would be deemed as such by a reasonable person (Bethel University, 2011, pp. 178-179).