United States V. Wade Case Study

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

This landmark case in criminal procedure was marked by great public criticism for the liberal stance shown by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ensures defendant’s rights to what many people regarded as opening the door to convicted criminals to escape punishment through “technicalities”.

My understanding of the court system has changed almost weekly from the beginning of my semester. I do understand things that I never thought I would’ve have known or even cared about in the least. The book Courtroom 302 has brought an even different side of thinking into this. The book goes into detail about the criminal court in Chicago. He watches all of the actions and different trials that come and go in the courtroom 302. He presents many different cases throughout the book which gives more insight then just a single case.

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

In Gideon v Wainwright (1963), the court dealt with the issue of right to counsel for non-capital and capital cases. The court was to determine whether states need to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not pay in both capital and non-capital offenses. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court held that the Sixth Amendment applied to all states by virtue of the 14th Amendment, implying that states had to provide counsel to defendants in state criminal trials involving serious criminal offenses. As a result of this decision, two significant issues were raised: the right to counsel as provided by the Sixth Amendment and the stages in the criminal justice system at which the defendant should be allowed counsel. These issues were based on the standards of effective counsel for purposes of establishing whether the right has been denied to the defendant (Pollak, 1979).

In the juvenile court proceedings, Michael filed a motion to suppress the statements on the basis that his request to see his probation officer had been denied, therefore invoking his right against self incrimination. Michael argued that this request was the same as requesting an attorney. The Court

In Patterson v. Illinois , the Court held that when an indicted defendant relinquished his Miranda right to counsel, he had simultaneously give up his Massiah right to counsel. This followed, the Court held, even though the two rights have different textual homes – Massiah the Sixth Amendment and Miranda the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause – and even though indictment is the start of the adversary criminal process. Similar to Miranda, the vote was 5-4. The dissent contended that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel carries with it duties and responsibilities that go beyond advice about responding questions, but the majority said that the matter was the usefulness of an attorney in the specific proceeding. In the context of interrogation, Miranda supplies the measure of the usefulness of an attorney. One problem left undecided by Patterson was whether it issues if a judge has appointed a counsel during a pretrial, and post-indictment, proceeding before police seek a Miranda waiver. Would a waiver of Miranda also waive Massiah when the indicted defendant is in fact represented by counsel? Continuing a string of 5-4 decisions, the Court in Montejo v. Louisiana held that Miranda continues to provide the measure of a usefulness of an attorney even if the defendant is officially represented by counsel. Thus, a waiver of Miranda is a waiver of Massiah whether or not the indicted defendant is represented by

3. Although it does not state the outcome of the case it does state that the judge ordered trial

7-Yes,the supreme court recognized how unjust it is to have a trial without counsel present.

The case of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is very similar in facts and issues to this case. Mr. Edwards was convicted of robbery, burglary, and first degree murder. While being questioned by

Further, he argued that the third statement was admissible to rebut the Crown’s allegation of recent fabrication. The court accepted the first submission and ordered a new trial. The court ruled that edited portions of those statements bearing upon the appellant’s state of mind were properly admissible as an exception to the rule against the admissibility of prior consistent statements. This court rejected the second argument on the ground that the Crown had not alleged recent fabrication. The appellant submits that the trial judge failed to put the defense position on automatism fairly before the jury telling to be sceptical of the defense, also mischaracterizing the evidence of Dr.kolito and failing to instruct the jury that the absence of motive had a bearing on the defense of

The Supreme Court believed that the lower courts decisions was incorrect due to the fact that the officers were acting with the Public Safety Exception which allows for the omission of the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized, (Albanese, 2013). The court believed that in order for the police to protect themselves and the public they needed to obtain the firearm to avoid further crime. In delivering the opinion of the court Justice Rehnquist believed that if Quarles had been read his Miranda Rights prior to telling officers where the gun was, he may not have responded due to his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, (FindLaw, 2016). The Supreme Court called for further proceedings with

Many believe that photographic arrays should include the defendant's legal counsel. However, some do not believe it is necessary. The Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the court, states that an arrestee or defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a photographic array (Ingram,

RULE OF LAW: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Stone v. Powell that the decision in Stone had been one of prudence rather than one of jurisdiction. In Stone, the court had decided against using the “exclusionary rule’ in federal have has cases dealing with unreasonable searches and seizures, reviewed does not cover Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims when defendants have already been given a fair chance of argue those claims stemming from the withholding of Miranda warning. In the Fifth Amendment involuntary testimony cases though, it was possible that a suspect would give false statement about his own guilt because the confusion of fear. Testimony may still be used that was obtained by violation of the Fourth amendment and admissible in court. Once proven that no violation of one’s constitution rights was

Procedural History: Respondents moved to suppress the evidence. The District Court suppressed in part, finding that the affidavit was inadequate to establish probable cause but also that none of the respondents had standing to challenge all of the searches. The Court also found a Burbank Police Officer acted in good faith.