0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rafa
Beau
TaigaAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Does indigent suspect charged with an offense for which he or she could receive a sentence of imprisonment has the constitutional right to be represented by counsel?
6th Amendment
What is the US Supreme Court case Argersinger v Hamlin about?
In Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 US 25 (1972) the Court extended the right to court-appointed counsel for any defendant facing jail time, even if the defendant was being charged with a misdemeanor. In previous cases the defendant was only allowed appointed counsel if charged with a felony. This case made sure any defendant facing any loss of liberty had the right to appointed counsel.
What was the ruling of the Gideon v. Wainwright case?
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)The US Supreme Court held that indigent defendants in criminal cases have a Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel. It pretty much was the cause of the establishment of the Public Defender system in American courts.For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.
Significance of faretta v California?
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Who was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court during the Gideon v Wainwright case?
In Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963), the Supreme Court unanimously decided that states had to provide free legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants. The Court held that poor people were being deprived of their Sixth Amendment constitutional right to an attorney, which applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The condition of poverty placed defendants in a position of not receiving the same opportunity for a fair trial (due process) as people who could afford to hire an attorney, which was unconstitutional.The verdict in Gideon's first trial was overturned, and the case remanded to the Florida state courts for a new trial, this time with court-appointed counsel.Gideon was acquitted in the second trial.ExplanationThe Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Clause was first applied to the states in Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932), a landmark case involving capital rape charges against nine poor African-American teens who came to be known as "The Scottsboro Boys." The original trial of the Scottsboro Boys was a travesty of justice; the defendants were supplied counsel, but not until immediately before each of their rushed trials, leaving the unprepared defense attorney unable to establish doubt among the jurors, despite one of the alleged rape victims recanting her claim. The defendants were sentenced to death.The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the teens had received inadequate counsel and insufficient time to prepare for trial. The Supreme Court agreed.The Court held, inter allia (among other things):"We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safeguarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution."Powell ensured other defendants in capital cases would be afforded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but was restricted from extending that protection to other criminal defendants because the question fell outside the scope of the case. This left states with considerable latitude in deciding when court-appointed counsel was appropriate, and many, including Florida, where Gideon was tried for a minor felony, restricted state aid to capital cases covered by the opinion in Powell.In 1942, the Court heard another case regarding insufficient counsel, Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942), that was similar in most respects to Gideon v. Wainwright. The defendant, Betts, was indicted for robbery in Maryland, and requested the court supply counsel due to his indigency. The Maryland court refused, Betts argued his own case, lost, and subsequently appealed to the US Supreme Court.The Betts Court differed in opinion from the Powell Court, holding the states could appoint counsel at their discretion, but were not required to do so except under "special circumstances," because legal representation was not considered a "fundamental right."In the opinion of the Court, Justice Owen Roberts declared that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require states to provide counsel, only to refrain from interfering with the defendant's request:"This material demonstrates that, in the great majority of the States, it has been the considered judgment of the people, their representatives, and their courts that appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial. On the contrary, the matter has generally been deemed one of legislative policy. In the light of this evidence, we are unable to say that the concept of due process incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the States, whatever may be their own views, to furnish counsel in every such case. Every court has power, if it deems proper, to appoint counsel where that course seems to be required in the interest of fairness."The later decision in Betts reinforced the states' refusal to use court-appointed attorneys for most felonies by declaring the right to counsel was not a fundamental constitutional protection, except in death penalty cases. There were also a limited number of statutory exceptions assisting illiterate and developmentally disabled defendants, but the majority of people were denied counsel.When Gideon v. Wainwright came before the Warren Court in 1963, the case, and the petitioner's rights, were viewed from a much more progressive perspective. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court held that the earlier opinion in Betts, allowing states to apply the Sixth Amendment selectively under the "special circumstances" doctrine, was unconstitutional. The decision used the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (as the Powell Court had) to extend the right of counsel to include all indigent criminal defendants.The Court overturned the Betts precedent and asserted that "Lawyers are necessities, not luxuries." The ruling in this case incorporated the Right to Counsel Clause to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause, finally establishing that even indigent defendants deserved the benefit of legal representation.Basing their decision in part on precedent established in another contemporary case, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 US 570 (1961), which overturned a contradictory Georgia law denying people deemed incompetent to testify on their own behalf "effective assistance of counsel," the Court effectively held that alllaymen were incompetent to defend themselves at trial, due to lack of legal and procedural knowledge:"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."Gideon's conviction was overturned, and the case was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court so they could make arrangements for a new trial. Gideon was represented at the second trial by attorney W. Fred Turner, who successfully discredited the prosecution's witnesses, demonstrating there was no evidence against his client. The jury deliberated only an hour before acquitting Gideon of the charges.Case Citation:Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)For more information, see Related Questions, below. one more thing am i wrong or nah
