The Rights Of An Attorney

A landmark case that shifted the attention to due process was Miranda vs. Arizona. In this historical landmark case the Miranda Rights got there famous name from this man Ernesto Miranda. The attention shifted to due process because of the fact that Miranda pled his rights were not read to him, therefore he did not know he could not self-incriminate himself. He claimed she was coerced to giving his confession (Miranda v. Arizona). From then on the criminal justice system new they had to do something about criminals trying to flee from the law by saying their rights were not read to them. Police departments everywhere new something had to be done. Therefore the Miranda rights were born all criminals were being arrested had to be read their Miranda Rights, therefore they could not plead that their rights were not read to them that is why the Miranda Rights is an important part of the due process. It is not fair to the suspect to arrest him and not to let them know why they are being detained, or

Some of these rights are the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against arrest without probable cause, the right against self-incrimination, the right to an attorney, and the right to fair questioning by the police. All of this is part of the Due Process Model but one thing the Due Process Model calls into question is, do the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many? (Perron)

America is built on the foundation of society being run and well-flowing around the three values the Republic of the United States hold most dear to: equality, freedom, and justice. The rights of the accused is an important factor in maximizing justice. Amendments 4-8 in the Bill of Rights specifically detail how criminal law should be dealt with, and how justice can be ensured every step of the way. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments contain two systems that go hand in hand with one another, a due process and a trial by jury for all citizens. Amendments 4-8, a Due Process, and a Trial by Jury are essential for establishing the rights of the accused and their absence would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system.

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,

Cornell Law provides a substantial amount of raw information on the Due Process Clause, covering topics ranging from its meaning in the nineteenth century to court cases that interpret its definition today. The source mentions small details about due process, such as influential procedures that the clause almost always follows, and when due process applies to freedoms and liberties. However, the next two sources describe the amendments which incorporate due process. Dr. Chapman and Dr. Yoshino present the Fourteenth Amendment as a primary source, citing word for word each of its five sections to include the Due Process Clause. The two then go into detail describing the topics “Substantive Due Process”, “Procedural Due Process”, and “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Against the States”, citing examples of when the Due Process Clause was used throughout history. Mr. Ryan not only a provides a primary source of the Fifth Amendment, one of the only two amendments that mention due process, but goes in depth on the topics of grand juries, double jeopardy, the Just Compensation Clause and self-incrimination, distinguishing them from the due process clause. He

The jury system in America is also influence by the English jury system. Another one of America’s constitutional right is due process which is the basic for fairness that is important in the judicial system which allows our system to work with honor and integrity. According to Currie (1992), the factors of due process involve the United States Constitution; Amendments V, and XIV and in 1970 Illinois State Constitution adopted some rights for due process.

The American judicial system is built on the idea that any person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. There are many amendments that help protect the rights of the accused. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right of a speedy trial, the 7th guarantees trial by jury. In 1966, the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, in a 5-4 vote for Miranda, which established a guarantee against self incrimination. This was very important for people that are accused of a crime because they are given the right to remain silent until they talk to their lawyer. Some argue that this law can put criminals back on the street, however I believe that it also protects the people that are innocent, but accused of a crime. As Justice Warren stated “Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of

Subsequently, in 1972 Argersinger v. Hamlin held that defendants were required legal counsel when faced with incarceration from a misdemeanor or felony conviction (Smith, 2004). Following these Supreme Court decisions, most state and local governments had to develop new systems of indigent defense or modify the old ones to keep up with the number of clients (Wice, 2005). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, other cases have challenged the Supreme Court application of the right to counsel. Currently, all defendants are given the right to counsel at all stages of the criminal justice process, including during trial, appeals, and even during police interrogation.

The right to counsel is contained in the 6th Amendment. In the 6th Amendment it states that a criminal has the right to an attorney (counsel) and if the defendant cannot afford an attorney one will be given to them. The defendant is given counsel through the entire criminal process not just at the trial. The attorney will help advise the defendant of their rights and what they should expect during the criminal process. They also make sure that the defendant’s rights are not violated in any way. They also help the defendant with plea-bargaining. This right is considered a Miranda right and was decided upon in 1966 during the Miranda vs. Arizona case. This case determined that the government couldn’t interrogate a criminal or a witness after

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).

In 1982, Alton Logan was charged and sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of a McDonald’s security guard in Illinois after three witnesses identified him despite the fact that several family members gave testimonies stating that Logan was home in the bed when the murder occurred (CBSNews, 2008). Around the same time attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were defending a man named Andrew Wilson was facing similar charges in the same jurisdiction who confessed to them that he killed the McDonalds security guard, and that Alton Logan was innocent (CBSNews, 2008). The two attorneys, being bound by the Attorney-Client Privilege and their duty of confidentiality to their client they did not come forward with the information that could have relieved Logan from the charges and his life sentence. Wilson gave the attorney’s permission to disclose the information upon his death and they took necessary measures to preserve the information until the time came when they would be able to share it (CBSNews, 2008).

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

I believe that every individual should be given the right to an attorney ,if they are accused of a crime or break the law. Even if the individual doesn't has the means of paying the lawyer, like healthcare individuals should be entitled to representation. Our country as well as the constitution has been constructed on helping and bettering its citizens. Although, our country continuously struggles with that aspect, we have came a long way. However, I think individuals who are accused of a crime and can't afford an attorney should not be granted a free attorney. If its a first time offense, then yes they should be appointed a lawyer at no charge if they cannot afford it. If they are constantly getting in trouble, then they should be charged

Before the case of Gideon v Wainwright, there were others cases of individuals that were denied the right to counsel. One case in particular, which fell under the Fourteenth Amendment Rights as well as the Sixth Amendment Rights of the Constitution, Betts v Brady (1942). Betts was indicted on robbery charges in Carroll County, Maryland. Betts wasn’t able to afford an attorney and requested appointed counsel. Betts was told by the judge that it wasn’t the practice in the county unless it was for a murder case or rape. Without counsel Betts pleaded not guilty, represented himself and was sentenced to eight years by the judge. Betts wasn’t well educated and knew nothing about the legal system on how to represent himself in a court of law. While incarcerated Betts filed a petition against the judge for denying him the right to counsel but it was denied. Betts presented a writ of corpus which was also denied. The Supreme Court of the United States went back and reviewed Betts case after Gideon filed his case. The decision for Betts case was eventually