Warren vs Rehnquist Courts Essay

2137 Words Sep 9th, 2014 9 Pages
Running head: WARREN VERSUS REHNQUIST COURTS

Warren versus Rehnquist Courts
Michael Walker
Park University

Abstract
The criminal justice system is greatly shaped by the civil rights safeguarded under the Bill of Rights. The court jurisprudence with regard to national security and civil liberties largely revolves around the provisions of the Bill of Rights (Baker, 2003). This paper discusses Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist’s significant decisions and the effects they had on the balance between social order maintenance and individual liberties.

Warren versus Rehnquist Courts
Earl Warren held the position of Chief Justice between 1953 and 1969. He led a liberal majority, who utilized the judicial authority to
…show more content…
This decision raised controversy with regard to the exclusion of illegally acquired evidence across all levels of the United States court system.
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).
The case of Miranda v Arizona concerned the issue of whether police interrogatory practices on persons without notifying such persons on their protection against self-incrimination and their right to counsel amounted to the violation of the 5th Amendment. In an unusual decision of 5-4, the court ruled that incriminating evidence stated by the accused cannot be admissible in a court