The United States Legal System Is Considered One Of The

Imagine you are the director of health information services for a medium-sized health care facility. Like many of your peers, you have contracted with an outside copying service to handle all requests for release of patient health information at your facility. You have learned that a lobbying organization for trial attorneys in your state is promoting legislation to place a cap on photocopying costs, which is significantly below the actual costs incurred as part of the contract. (Case Study, p. 20)

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

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

Did the state court's failure to appoint a lawyer for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

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.

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

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.

     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

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.

On March 1963 a 22-year-old man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Az for kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old girl. At anytime from being interrogated was Miranda read his rights, and he confessed his crime. In the event that he had signed a confession paper that claimed that Miranda had been read his rights which was not true. The 5th amendment states, “... to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case”(Wikipedia). This illustrates how we the people are protected by the constitution, and have the right to not speak until an attorney is present. The Miranda v Arizona definitely ensures justice

Prior to Miranda vs Arizona, Gideon vs Wainwright had clarified a defendant’s right to counsel, this was also later solidified in Escobedo vs Illinois. The Miranda Court upheld these ruling due to its primary concern being with “procedural safeguards” and ensuring that all defendants had a fairer trial.

The reversal of Miranda’s case set forth the start to a new, and controversial, perspective on citizen’s rights within the law. While incarcerated, Miranda heard about the Gideon v Wainwright case court decision, which established that any person on trial had a constitutional right to legal counsel for felony charges in state courts. Inspired by this, Miranda sought new counsel and appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 22, 1965, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, which orders the lower courts to deliver records from a case so that the higher courts can review it. Within the court, Justices reviewed Miranda’s confession in light of the Fifth amendment; they also examined the Sixth amendment, right to counsel as

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

As the world is moving forward, the need for unified law is increasing. That is why mixed legal jurisdictions are being able to accommodate modern laws into their own jurisdictions. Several jurisdictions in the world have mixed legal heritage, as different countries have ruled them but some of the countries tend to adopt laws from other jurisdictions. Philippines is country who has a very strong mixed legal heritage and Japan also adopted law from U.S.A.

Comparative law has several practical applications. This has made it a very key subject in various aspects of law practice and study. Zweigert and Kötz identify four major areas where it has been widely and effectively used . These include being used as an aid to legislators, as a component of the curriculum in universities, a tool of construction and as a contributor to the systemic unification of law. All these areas underscore the importance of the subject. This treatise looks into cooperative law as an aid to legislators. This is done by reviewing and evaluating how it has been used in different countries of the world for legislative purposes and in the molding of the existing legal structures and systems.