US Supreme Court Case Analysis

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 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.

One of the main purposes of our judicial system is to produce fair results. This way the defendant is not convicted for something that they did not do. Although this is supposed to be the case, our society is set up in a way where the rich people have more of an advantage when it comes down to being provided with a lawyer than the poor. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, in 1963, the Supreme Court decided that to ensure fair trial, a counsel must be provided for the defendants that cannot afford one. Although the Sixth Amendment only says that someone has the right to a counsel, the purpose for a lawyer is to protect the innocent. This cannot happen if the lawyer does a poor job defending their client. This is why the Supreme Court should set a new precedent stating that everyone is entitled to a high quality defense. A high quality defense would look like someone who presents good arguments that helps back up a side. They are well prepared and knowledgeable about the case. Furthermore, they are well rounded people with good interpretation and speaking skills. Most importantly though, they are good listeners, patient, logical, observance, and open minded about the issue. With that, they have to be able to know how to deal with the issue and come up with alternatives.

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 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.

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

The Sixth Amendment is an extended version of the Miranda Rights and goes into depth about the court process. It states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (“Sixth Amendment”). This Amendment pinpoints the public defender position and also grants the convict certain rights specific to law. Along with the sixth amendment, the Miranda Rights also play a role in the position of a public defender. The Miranda Rights state: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” (“What Are Your Miranda Rights?”). The Miranda Rights contain a portion of both the fifth and sixth amendments, and also pinpoints the public defender

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.

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

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

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

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that because the assistance of counsel in a criminal case is a fundamental necessity, the Constitution requires appointment of attorneys to represent "any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer."