US Supreme Court Case Analysis

As with any legal matter, having access to legal counsel is always advantageous, however, not all cases require the assistance of an attorney and the fees associated with their often very brief representation as in misdemeanor cases which would not result in the restriction of their freedom. Zalman identifies several reasons for a pro se defense, among them, the “perceived incompetence of assigned counsel or defendant sharply disagrees with counsel’s legal strategy” (2011). While the Sixth Amendment establishes an individual’s right to self-representation, as decided in Faretta v. California, I do not believe that self-representation is an option to consider in charges for matters outside of traffic court in most cases.

This proving the unfairness of this precedent. Take a second and just imagine some of the largest cases of the last century -- civil and criminal -- , and envision how they would have went without the defendant/respondent having a lawyer. I ask you to ponder if O.J. Simpson would have been acquitted of double homicide if it was not for Johnnie Cochran. Or Casey Anthony if it was not for Jose Baez. George Zimmerman? Al Capone? William S. Burroughs? The amount of cases literally transformed by the presence and work of

(2) Yes because people have the right to an attorney and if they can not afford one one is provided for them. Public defenders chose their job. Not only that but good ones put time and effort into what they do. The job requires skill. Also public defenders are often overworked and underpaid.

Every individual has the right to a defense attorney even if the defendant can no afford one. In situations where defendants cannot afford an attorney the court appoints one to them. “ There are some limited exceptions to this which includes, defendants who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled, children, and some cases involving child custody or child protection, (“Find Law,” 2015).” Defense attorneys specifically represent the defendant unlike prosecutors who represent the state. Cases where defendants would need a defense attorney vary from misdemeanors to felonies.

The right to an attorney creates a leeway for perpetrators. In New York for example, the

Many defendes do not have enough time – sometimes only minutes per case – they are unable to conduct many of the critical tasks necessary to provide quality defense, including interviewing clients and witnesses, conducting legal research, writing motions, accessing and preparing experts, and generally preparing to represent their clients at pretrial hearings, trials and sentencing hearings. Meeting with a client soon after arrest can have a significant impact on the ability to conduct an investigation and prepare a defense, including being able to find defense witnesses and evidence. A lack of confidential space can compound this problem, especially for clients who are incarcerated before trial. Proper resources and adequate time may not guarantee

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.

This being said, beyond performing his/her role of counselor or advisor, a defense attorney is an advocate for his client. The latter ought to protect his client interest.

Public defenders are put at a major disadvantage in terms of the effectiveness of defense they can provide. Most defenders will try to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but there are so many obstacles that prevent this from happening. These obstacles include heavy caseloads, lack of resources, government restriction, and the type of client they have to defend. While not all of these problems have a simple solution there must be some remedy to the issues. By not being able to provide a proper defense it directly violates proper due process.

You may not be one of these high profile people, and you may not have employed an attorney as of yet because a) you do not really have a need for them yet or b) they are, of course, too expensive to just have on hand. But even given this you will have to keep in mind that in the case of an impending criminal trial, choosing and hiring a good lawyer early on is your top priority.

I agree that public policy should recognize a fundamental right to representation by a lawyer because it is vital as if someone does find themselves in a position without a lawyer as compared to someone finding themselves without adequate healthcare. In both of these situations it is important that they have either a lawyer to represent them or adequate health care in order to benefit them. Being that anyone can find themselves in this situation it is important that they have someone there to represent them at this moment because even though it is not a privately paid lawyer which may be better than the assigned criminal attorney, it is still better than this individual representing themselves. The knowledge alone about the criminal justice

It is important to have a good defense attorney as their job is to advocate for the client and protect his or her right to due process. As the highest court of the land, U.S. Supreme Court should set standards to define a good defense attorney. They should be able to set some general effective and achievable standards. The defendant’s guilt or innocence should rely heavily on our criminal justice system as a whole and not just to one’s lawyer. Without a good system, any person standing out will not fixed the problems. Agreeing to a certain point regarding the sentiment that the criminal justice system treats people with money who can afford a high-quality attorney differently from those that rely on a public defender. Not all high-quality attorneys

The order of law is the utmost importance of maintaining a safe and healthy society. And with upholding these laws, sometimes our laws come within conflict or cause confusion between rights of parties both seeking justice. And today, we indeed face a conflict created from past Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and constitutional powers. In this contested court for the manner of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III v. City of Chicago, we must first look at the questions before us. Can the Attorney General create conditions upon the Byrne grant program? And in doing so, is placing the conditions become a means of coercion?

There are two different types of cases in the justice system. There are Civil cases and Criminal cases. Civil cases being private citizens are the parties involved in the cases such as; small claims, child support, and landlord-tenant cases. Unlike criminal cases a court appointed lawyer is not needed, meaning you can represent yourself. There is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” in civil cases. In these cases, it is based on the standard of proof, and clear and concise evidence. A criminal case is a case brought against a person who has broken a criminal law. Examples of these kinds of cases would be either an infraction, like a parking ticket, a misdemeanor, a crime that is more serious and can be punished by jail or a fine of up to 1,000

Before we get started ask yourself just one simple question, why would a criminal offender waive their right in obtaining a lawyer and advance forward representing themselves during their criminal trial? After we have taken a couple of minutes to process the above question, the majority of individuals will state that there really is no verifiable reason why someone would turn away counsel unless they were mentally incompetent. Over the years, courtroom proceedings have taken place where individuals like Ted Bundy and Colin Ferguson have made national headlines where they both choose the path of self-representation. However, not only do outsiders recognize self-representation can have a huge impact on one’s case, but all the court systems as well have gained a complete understanding that choices like this can affect one’s future. With society growing more studies and statistics are being developed in regards to what a criminal offender is thinking and why they choose to represent themselves in the court of law.