Once again, answers to the questions are due on Sunday 1/15
Responses to other students are due Tuesday 1/17
Most students did an excellent job on the last blog assignment.
Lets see that same type of intelligent discourse in this assignment!!
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/key-constitutional-concepts
The section of the video we need begins at 22.59 minutes
Please respond to these questions:
1. If you are accused of a crime, do you need an attorney? Please explain why.
2. List 2 advantages and 2 disadvantages of having a lawyer
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
defence.
List the 7 rights contained in this Amendment
4. Do you think Clarence Gideon was guilty based on the evidence
presented at his first trial and his past history?
ƒ
5. Based on his past history, why might Gideon not receive a fair
trial?
6. What does it mean to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
7. Do you think the evidence is strong enough to convict Gideon?
Why or why not?
8. What is circumstantial evidence?
9. Was Clarence Gideon right in his assertion that the court must provide a
lawyer for him? Why or why not?
10. What was an attorney able to do for Gideon in the second trial that
he was not able to do for himself in the first?
11. If you are charged with a crime, why is it important to have a
lawyer?
12. What did Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black think about Gideon’s
appeal?
13. How was the Fourteenth Amendment applied in this case?
14. How do those detained by the police or arrested for a crime know about their
right to an attorney?
15. What happens if the police do not inform the person of their rights?
16. Review Handout #2, Important Court Cases Regarding the Right to Counsel.
Encourage students to use the Justice Learning website to complete the handout.
Handout #2
Important Court Cases Regarding Right to Counsel
Case Notes
Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that
defendants in capital cases are entitled to
an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
17. Using the information collected about the court cases and the Constitution as
supporting evidence, answer the following question:
a. Was the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer?
ƒ If you answered no, then explain why the Supreme Court overturned the
Florida court’s decision and their reasoning for doing so.
ƒ If you answered yes, then explain how the Gideon case departed from
earlier Supreme Court decisions.
1. If you are accused of a crime, do you need an attorney? Please explain why.
ReplyDeleteYes, everyone is entitled to a lawyer if they are accused of anything in court.
2. Advantages-
a) Bigger chance of staying out of jail/ being declared ‘not guilty’
b) Someone with at least some experience is representing your case
Disadvantages-
a) Lawyer might not mention your whole story for the benefit of winning the case.
b) Some lawyers are better than others or have more experience
3. The right to:
- A speedy and public trial
- 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,
- To have an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
- Which district shall have been previously ascertained bylaw,
- To have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
4. No, because he wasn’t convicted before.
5. Because he was too poor.
6. Each person in court needs proof of breaking a law.
7. Yes, the charge was too big for the crime he did
8. Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute.
9. Yes, because the 6th amendment technically says that every person has the right to an attorney and the 14th also enforces that.
10. Defend using evidence and reasonable doubt.
11. The lawyer probably has more experience and skill than someone who isn’t a lawyer.
12. That his social status shouldn’t have gotten in the way of his right to a lawyer
13. The 14th says that no one can be denied the right to a lawyer.
14. Miranda rights.
15. The person has a right to ask for them or to point that out in court.
16. Important Court Cases Regarding Right to Counsel
Case Notes
Powell v. Alabama (1932 The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) A landmark United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) A landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) A landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them
17. No, the Supreme Court got to overturn the decisions made in the Florida court since it was a Federal court and had more power. The amendments in the constitution also backed up the supreme courts decision.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Do you NEED an attorney? No: you can represent yourself. However, it is best to leave things in the hands of a lawyer, who will represent you with their years of knowledge. But, yes, everyone should be ALLOWED or appointed an attorney.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: the lawyer representing you is experienced in law, and will work hard to win your case because then they get paid.
Disadvantages: the lawyer either doesn’t know the whole story, or won’t give the whole story, and if you can’t afford a lawyer one will be appointed to you and no one is saying this is the smartest lawyer money can buy.
3. One: the accused will have a quick and public trial. Two: the jury judging the accused will not be partial to either side. Three: the trial will take place in the district the crime was committed in (which will be decided by law). Four: the accused will be informed of what they are accused of. Five: the accused will have witnesses in their favor. Six: witnesses against them will confront the accused. Seven: the accused can have a lawyer or “counsel” for their defense.
4. Well, it seems like he would be guilty based on his past crimes, and since he had been guilty of crimes since a child. However, I feel like the amount of change and the amount of drinks would be a lot for him to carry in his pockets, seeing as witnesses say they saw his pockets bulging. Therefore, I think he was not guilty. Besides, who would fight so much and so hard if they knew in their heart they were guilty and someone had seen them?
5. He committed a lot of crimes growing up, so the jury might automatically right him off guilty, especially if there was already a witness.
6. No one is 100% guilty of a crime until proven otherwise by evidence: you must assume the best of someone, until the worst his proven.
7. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think the evidence of stolen goods and ONE witness who said they saw him walking around with his pockets bulging was not enough to convict Gideon.
8. Evidence that hints that someone is guilty without making it 100% clear.
9. Technically he was wrong. State courts had no law about providing a lawyer for everyone, only Federal. Then again, in the constitution it says everyone should be appointed council, and also in the constitution it says states cannot refuse to give someone their rights, so even if he was confused in a way he was right even if the state didn’t see it that way at the time.
10. A lawyer was able to go back and do research into his case, and find witnesses and evidence to help him.
11. A lawyer knows their way around the legal system, and they would be more confident then you since they aren’t being tried.
12. Hugo Black thought that Gideon was right. Black thought that, no matter a person’s status, they should have a lawyer.
13. The 14th amendment says the states cannot refuse any man his rights, which pointed back to the right of having council.
14. The police recite the whole bit including that that they can ask for a lawyer, or one will be appointed to them. As soon as someone is arrested, they know about their rights.
15. If the police don’t inform them of their rights, they can plead misinformed or something, and claim they didn’t know about certain things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(Continued)
ReplyDelete16. Case notes:
Powell VS Alabama (1932): the Supreme Court decided everyone is entitled to a lawyer.
Betts VS Brady (1942): the court ruled that the 14th amendment did not require states to provide a lawyer for any defendant.
Gideon VS Wainwright (1963): the court rules that, due to rights, any defendant, if they are too poor to provide a lawyer, must be appointed a lawyer.
Miranda VS Arizona (1966): the court rules that police officers MUST inform suspects of their rights.
17. At the time, the court was justified in refusing him a lawyer. State courts were not held law to offer everyone a lawyer.
However, after the Supreme Court took another look at the constitution, it became clear that the State courts should have had to abide by the same law as the Federal courts in the lawyer law. No man could be denied rights, and one right was to be given counsel.
1. You are not required to have an attorney. But it is very recommended. But a judge will recommend that you have an attorney.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: you have someone sticking up for you and fighting for you. Less of a chance of being named guilty. Disadvantages: lawyer may not be fully truthful to keep you out of jail so that they get paid. You can hire a bad lawyer or a lawyer may not even want to support your case.
3. Speed and public trial, to be informed of the nature of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against them, witness in their favor, will have a jury of the state, have an assistance of council
4. I feel that he was convicted of being guilty because he did have a past
5. His past will not give him a fair trial because they know that he tend to do things that are illegal
6. That for now they are innocent, but the case is not closed. And if new evidence arises then they are guilty.
7. No because the only evidence that they had was that he was there.
8. It is evidence that could be true only because on the condition or time of the crime.
9. No because each state can decide whether or not you receive a lawyer paid for by them
10. He was able to bring up something’s that clearly made him innocent. Like how much $6-$50 in change really is or how much it weighs.
11. The lawyer will fight for you, and also if someone else is saying its true then you have a higher chance of someone believing you. If you stand up for your self you are more likely to fail.
12. That his social status should not have gotten in the way of him having a lawyer.
13. The 14th amendment says that everyone deserves a lawyer.
14. Miranda rights
15. A person could ask, or they could bring up that in court as being unfair.
Powell VS Alabama (1932) Supreme Court said that in capital cases that people get an attorney
Betts VS Bradley (1942) denied council to people when prosecuted against the state
Gideon VS Wainwrite (1963) state courts must give people an attorney in criminal cases if they cannot pay for it
Miranda VS Arizona (1966) Stated that if someone says something when arrested and they were not told that they had the right to remain silent then those things could not be used against them in court.
17. Yes, after his case was when they were required to give an attorney to people that were involved in criminal cases.
1. No because you can represent yourself.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: attorney’s know the law, more experienced
Disadvantages: high cost, lawyer doesn’t believe you
3. Speedy and public trial, impartial jury, tried in district wherein the crime shall have been committed, informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, confronted with the witnesses against him, have assistance of counsel, have witness in his favor
4. No I don’t think was guilty based on the evidence presented at his first trial and his past history.
5. Because he had committed similar crimes before and people may have thought once a criminal always a criminal.
6. That no matter how much it looks like a person did something they are innocent until taken to trial and proven guilty.
7. No because the evidence wasn’t solid enough but then again its more of how you present it.
8. Indirect evidence, which leads to, but does not prove a specific conclusion.
9. No not at the time because the constitution didn’t specifically state that it required by the state.
10. Persuade the jury of his innocents using the law and evidence.
11. Because they can defend you better than you can defend yourself. They show emotion at the right times.
12. Justice Black was for Gideon’s appeal, he believed that the state should be required to give the people an attorney.
13. It was used to say that the government couldn’t deny the people of there fundamental rights.
14. They are told there rights upon arrest.
15. Anything the person says is inadmissible.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932)
The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942)
The justices ruled that whether a lawyer was required would depend upon the circumstances in each case
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Did away with the case-by-case approach and ruled that defendants in criminal cases must be provided with a lawyer by the government if they were too poor to afford one.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
All persons held in custody must be informed of their right to counsel and that an attorney will be appointed to represent them if they cannot afford one.
17. No because they knew it was unfair that he couldn’t afford a lawyer because he was too poor and that it would be fairer if he had someone to defend him.
1. An attorney’s job is to argue on your behalf. They know how to present a case well and they, most likely, will be better at presenting a case than you will be.
Delete2. Advantages – someone to argue on your behalf and they know and understand the legal system. Disadvantages – you have to tell them your side of the story completely or they might ask you a question that destroys your case and they might be a bad lawyer or try to undermine your case because they think you are in the wrong
3. The seven rights are
a. Trial by jury
b. Public trial
c. A trial soon after the criminal charges
d. To have witnesses
e. Right to a lawyer
f. To understand the charges against them
g. To be confronted by the witnesses against them
4. I do not believe Gideon was guilty because that is a lot of change to be in your pockets.
5. If he had been convicted of crimes before, he has a history of breaking the law and this would just fit in with who he was believed to be.
6. The defendant is by default innocent, unless sufficient evidence is presented to prove them guilty
7. No. There were only the words people who saw him at the bar that night, but there were also other people at the bar. I still believe that it is near impossible to fit that much change in one person’s pockets
8. It is where there must be a connection made between the evidence and the conviction. Direct evidence directly shows who the criminal was. Circumstantial evidence requires more information.
9. At the time, he was wrong because the Supreme Court interpreted the law so that local courts did not have to supply a lawyer. Later on, after his Supreme Court case, he was right because they changed the way the law was interpreted to require a local court to supply a lawyer.
10. The second time, Gideon won his case.
11. It is important because the lawyer will most likely be better at defending you than you are for yourself.
12. He thought Gideon’s appeal was the perfect time to take control of the situation and make his views seen.
13. It dictated that the court had to supply a lawyer to Gideon because he could not afford one.
14. They are told their rights when they are arrested and they are told by the judge.
15. The judge is supposed to inform the defendant of their rights in the beginning of the trial.
16. The different cases
a. Powell v Alabama (1932) – The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
b. Betts v Brady (1942) – The Supreme Court ruled that whether a lawyer was required was based on the circumstances.
c. Gideon v Wainwright (1963) – the Supreme Court determined that a lawyer is always required.
d. Miranda v Arizona (1966) - The Supreme Court determined that everybody who was arrested or detained must be notified of their rights.
17. At the time it was justified. Later on, the Supreme Court changed its mind on the interpretation of the law that stated whether or not a person was guaranteed a lawyer.
@alexis:
ReplyDelete#6 i liked how you stated what presumed innocent until proven guilty.
#11 your answer is good i hadnt really thought to say that.
@ted:
#2 hadnt thought about the chance of hiring a bad attorney.
#15 i hadnt thought about it making it all the way to court but for it to be claimed inadmissible or unfair it would have to go to court.
1. No, you do not need a lawyer, it is just recommended. But you are entitled to one
ReplyDelete2. Advantages- you have someone experienced working for you; better chance of being not guilty
Disadvantages- your whole story may not be heard; they can be expensive if you are paying
3. Speedy and public trial; impartial jury; knowing what you are accused of; being introduced to the witness against you; having a witness for you; being allowed to find witnesses in his favor; having the assistance of council for his defense
4. His past history
5. Because he is more likely to have done it
6. you can not be treated like a prisoner in any way until you are said to be guilty
7. No, no one saw him actually do it
8. something that only provides a basis for inferring the facts in dispute
9. no, because the federal courts were the ones with that law, not the state.
10. He was able to reason better, and knew how to argue
11. To argue for you, and argue welll
12. Thought he was right
13. It says no one can be denied the right to a lawyer
14. The police tell them
15. They can plead misinformed in courts
16.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)-The Supreme Court determined that the defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942)- Supreme Court ruled states do not need to give people attorneys
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)- States must give everyone an attorney
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- If someone is not told their rights, then things said by them before then can not be used in court
17. Yes, up until the supreme court said that they had the right to an attorney no matter what court you are in. It just became more clear what the 14th amendment meant after reading it more.
1. Do you need a lawyer no, but should you have one yes. Lawyers have the knowledge and expertise that will help you get through the case. If the case is threatening your liberty then you should defiantly get a lawyer.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages:
• A lawyers have legal experience and knowledge on laws and rights that you may not be aware of.
• People can avoid costly legal mistakes caused by failure to know their constitutional rights
Disadvantages:
• Good lawyers are very costly and not everyone can pay for a good lawyer
• The case might be beyond his control, he might not be the best lawyer so he cant contribute success to your case
3. 1. Speedy trial 2. Public trial 3. Fair jury of the State and district where the crime was committed 4. Will be informed of the cause of the accusation 5. Has the right to have a witness in his favor 6. The assistance of counsel (lawyer) for his defense
4. Well, because he had always been evolved in the criminal justice system it is easy to point fingers and accuse Gideon of being guilty. I believe it could be possible that he was guilty for the loose change that was stolen form the machines because of the evidence presented, but I don’t think he was guilty for the drinks that were stolen, because I didn’t see evidence proving that fact.
5. He might not receive a fair trial because he was poor and he has always been in trouble from childhood.
6. You are innocent until in court the prosecutors can prove you are guilty
7. I don’t think the evidence was enough to convict Gideon because there was only one person who said they saw him with his pockets filled with change. I don’t think only one person with no other evidence is enough to convict Gideon.
8. Is a fact that leads to, but doesn’t prove the conclusion
9. He was right and wrong. He was wrong because in the federal court you are entitled to a lawyer but in Florida State were he was convicted he was not entitled to a lawyer, but he was right because in the 6th amendment he states, “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”
10. The lawyer was able to refer to the constitution to contribute success to the case. He used the 14th amendment, which says: states have to abide by the fundamental rights laid out by the bill of rights. Including the 6th amendment: right to counsel.
11. To defend your case with the correct knowledge. Lawyers have great legal experience; this experience can help you get out of the mess.
12. Hugo Black agreed with Gideon appeal. He thought that no matter if you are rich or poor you should still have equal justice.
13. It was applied in this case because the 14th amendment says: states have to abide by the fundamental rights laid out by the bill of rights, and the state of Florida wasn’t abiding this rule by denying Gideon the right to counsel.
14. The police as to inform them about their Miranda Rights; a person has the right to remain silent and have a lawyer during questioning, anything you say or do can and will be used against you
15. If the police fail to read you your Miranda Rights anything that happens will be forcibly put to an end and will not be used against you in court.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) state courts are required due to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) declared that criminals must be told their rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and any evidence obtained from them prior to hearing their rights will have been obtained illegally.
17. The Florida court was justified because before the case the state of Florida did not have to provide him with a lawyer. It was after, when the supreme court declared that states as well have to abide to the 6th amendment
1. Yes, because you have someone else that is more experience and know what they’re doing to help you prove you’re innocent.
ReplyDelete2. a. Lawyers know more about law
a. More experience
d. Lawyers are expensive
d. Lawyers increase the tension level most of the times
3. 1. The right to a speedy trial
2. The right to a public trial
3. The right to be judged by an impartial jury
4. The right to be notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime
5. The right to confront witnesses who will testify against the accused
6. The right to find witnesses who will speak in favor of the accused
7. The right to have attorney
4. No, he was not guilty because of the evidence presented at his first trial and his past history. He was guilty because he didn’t have a lawyer to represent him.
5. Gideon did not receive a fair trial because the state would not allow him to get a lawyer.
6. Presumed innocent until proven guilty means that trial has the responsibility to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused bears no burden of proof.
7. I don’t think that evidence were strong enough to convict Gideon because it was broad evidence and that make seem like it could be anyone who had a lot changes in their pocket.
8. Circumstantial Evidence is indirect evidence that seeks to prove certain facts by proving other circumstances and events. It’s according to common experiences.
9. I believe that Clarence Gideon was right in his assertion that the court must provide a lawyer for him because the lawyer knew the law better than him and that means he can defend Clarence case better he could.
10. The attorney was able to argue with Jacob better Gideon in the second trial by studying Jacobs possible attacks on him and saying that bill of right should be applied to the states because of the 14th amendment.
11. it’s important to have a lawyer so they could prove innocent if you and make the decision easier on the judge by hearing both side of the story clearly.
12. The Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black approve Gideon’s appeal and allowing him to take his case to the federal law.
13. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the bill of rights to the state because it says that states can’t deny the citizen fundamental right and allowing Gideon the right to have an attorney because the bill of right says that anyone is capable of getting a lawyer.
14. Those who were detained by the police or arrested for a crime know about their right to an attorney by knowing about the constitution or through their friends who were also arrested.
15. If the police do not inform the person of their rights than person would not know their rights and the person would create their own rights.
16. Betts V. Brady (1942)
a. The court decided that the right to counsel must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Gideon V. Wainwright
a. Decisions without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miranda V. Arizona (1966)
a. Criminals must be told their rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
17. I don’t think that the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer because the 14th amendment says that states can’t deny the citizen fundamental right.
1. If you are accused of a crime, do you need an attorney? Please explain why.
ReplyDeleteNO you don’t need an attorney but it is advised that you do because you probably don’t know the law well enough to defend your self-using the right terminology or even the right laws and rights. It is even a good idea to know a good lawyer even if you don’t plan on committing a crime to build that point of contact.
2. List 2 advantages and 2 disadvantages of having a lawyer
• Advantages
o Probably knows the law better than you do
o Can find loopholes sometimes
• Disadvantages
o No guarantee of winning the case
o Costs money most of the time
3. Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.
List the 7 rights contained in this Amendment
• Right to a speedy and public trial
• Right to a public trial
• Have an jury that is of the state and district where the crime was committed
• Be informed of what crime was committed
• Be confronted with the witnesses against you
• Be able to find a witnesses in your favor
• Have assistance of counsel for his defense
4. Do you think Clarence Gideon was guilty based on the evidence presented at his first trial and his past history?
I think he was found guilty because of part of his past history and partly based on the evidence.
5. Based on his past history, why might Gideon not receive a fair trial?
Gideon might not receive a fair trial because he was poor, did not have any council, and had a record since a kid.
6. What does it mean to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Basically what it says you are innocent until proven guilty by the courts.
7. Do you think the evidence is strong enough to convict Gideon? Why or why not?
No because it was circumstantial but was obviously good enough for a Florida jury.
8. What is circumstantial evidence?
The evidence has not been proven to be true.
9. Was Clarence Gideon right in his assertion that the court must provide a lawyer for him? Why or why not?
Yes because the 14th amendment said it, but no because at that time the states could chose whether or not to follow that amendment.
10. What was an attorney able to do for Gideon in the second trial that he was not able to do for himself in the first?
Argue his case better than himself.
11. If you are charged with a crime, why is it important to have a lawyer?
Because they should know the laws better than you do and can represent you rather than you having to do it all by yourself.
12. What did Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black think about Gideon’s appeal?
He thought that he was making things right for Gideon and for other people.
13. How was the Fourteenth Amendment applied in this case?
It was used to say that the states could not deny any person of their rights.
14. How do those detained by the police or arrested for a crime know about their right to an attorney?
By the police reading them their Miranda rights.
15. What happens if the police do not inform the person of their rights?
The police cannot use anything the suspect says if they don’t read them their rights.
1. You don’t exactly need an attorney when you’re accused of a crime, but it can always be helpful if they are needed for advice or there are serious situations.
ReplyDelete2. Advantage- Lawyers can be less expensive than solving a legal problem by yourself, and lawyers are knowledgeable of the legal system to protect you and your interests
Disadvantage- They are expensive in that 1) they will try to take actions that need legal action when another solution would be best for you and 2) they will sue you if there is a discretion in paying them.
3.
-The right to a speedy and public trial
-The trial will be held in the state and district the crime had been committed.
-Impartial jury over a judge
-Assistance of Counsel(lawyer)
-See the witnesses against them
-Necessary for the accused to get witnesses for their defense
-The accused is informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
4. I do not think he was guilty based on the evidence because they said that he had all of the stolen money in change in his pocket with little proof and highly improbable since it was a lot of money.
5. Gideon might not have received a fair trial because everyone knew that in the past he had always been a criminal and been arrested multiple times, so they automatically became biased into thinking he was guilty of this crime as well.
6. It means that without evidence that is undeniable proof to show the person is guilty, they are still considered innocent.
7. I did not think the evidence was strong enough to convict Gideon because there was a lack of proof that Gideon had all of the stolen money on him.
8. Circumstantial evidence is evidence found that needs an interference or presumption to be made to make a conclusion.
9. Gideon wasn’t right in his assertion because he was being tried in a state court, where there was no law that gave the accused right to have a lawyer, despite it being in the Constitution.
10. An attorney was able to correctly and effectively argue Gideon’s defense and point out flaws in the persecution’s evidence.
11. Having a lawyer is important because they can argue your defense much more effectively than you could by yourself.
12. Justice Hugo Black believed Gideon’s appeal was correct because he also believed that Gideon did not have a fair trial without the right to a lawyer.
13. The Fourteenth Amendment applied in this case because the amendment told that even if a state’s constitution did not specify the same rights to people that was in the U.S. Constitution, every citizen still had those rights that override any state matters.
14. The police tell the accused their rights when they are arrested and when they are detained, including the right to an attorney.
15. If the police do not inform the person of their rights, then the prosecutor cannot use anything the suspect says as evidence in a trial.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932) - The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) -The Supreme Court determined that poor people that were accused were denied counsel.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)- Supreme Court ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for poor defendants.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- Supreme Court determined that if the defendant is not told their rights, the prosecution cannot use anything the defendant says as evidence.
17. Using the information collected about the court cases and the Constitution as
supporting evidence, answer the following question:
a. Was the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer?
If you answered no, then explain why the Supreme Court overturned the
Florida court’s decision and their reasoning for doing so.
The Florida court was not justified and that is why the Supreme Court overturned it. They overturned it because by the 14th Amendment and 6th Amendment, they thought that Gideon should have not been denied a court-appointed lawyer.
I didn't really think about your first disadvantage in having a lawyer (question #2).
DeleteThat's true... a lawyer would take the path that would have the better legal advantage, but not personal. It's really about settling the case, where for the client it's about winning for, probably, more personal issues.
1. No not necessarily, is it a good idea to have one yes. We have the choice to argue for ourselves, but chances are that we don’t know as much as an at tourney/lawyer would know about the law.
ReplyDelete2. 2 advantages are you have someone on your side, at least as long as the money is flowing, and you have someone (hopefully) who knows the law well and can get you out of whatever you are in. 2 disadvantages would be, costs a lot of money, and they might give up when you want to keep going forcing you to get, and pay, someone else.
3. 1) You get a speedy trial
2) You get an impartial jury
3) You will be told what you are being charged with
4) You will be shown the witnesses against you
5) Have assistance for consul in your defense
6) You will be allowed to get your own witnesses
7) The right to a public trial
4. No I do not believe he was guilty. Doesn’t really matter how much evidence you have (unless he confesses) you still need to explain how he fit 6 pounds of coins in his tiny little pockets. Unless he had some sort of infinite storage device I am not seeing how he was able to do it. To me it just seems like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
5. He was a bum, a poor bum known around the city/town as one.
6. It means that you will not be considered guilty until you have been proven guilty through the decision of the jury based on the evidence brought before them, plain and simple.
7. They really had nothing, they knew he was there, and that he was bum, but the only witness they had said he was walking around with bulging pockets, which as discussed above does not work. Thusly I say no, they were just pointing fingers.
8. It is evidence that requires one to infer to something to connect it to the person or the crime. Examples include fingerprints, because those could have happened at any time not just the time of the crime.
9. He was and he wasn’t, it is in the constitution that one always can get a lawyer, provided if need be, (which is then enforced by the 14th amendment) but until this incident this only applied to federal cases so the court was right to refuse Gideon at the time.
10. The attorney was able to actually defend Gideon and poke holes in the prosecution’s argument.
11. It is important to have a lawyer because they know the law, they know how they should be arguing for you (or at least should know). This is why it is important to have one; they know things that you may not.
12. Hugo supported Gideon and thought he was right.
13. It states that states cannot refuse a person their rights, which in this case meant right to a consul.
14. The police are supposed to tell them, or whoever it is detaining them.
15. If they do not tell the person their rights then they can plead misinformed and say they did not know about certain things, which can mess the whole process up.
16. 1) Powell v. Alabama (1932 The Supreme Court determined that defendants 2) in capital cases are entitled to an attorney, whether they can afford one or not.
3) Betts v. Brady (1942) A big mile stone United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to impoverished defendants when prosecuted by a state.
4) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) A landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
5) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) A landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant knew about his rights and waived them even though he said incriminating facts.
17. No they were not right, they were supposed to give him a lawyer and denied it. The supreme court (though it took time) overturned this decision because a state cannot deny someone their rights, no matter the circumstances.
1. You could represent yourself, but it’s usually better to consult a lawyer for important cases.
ReplyDelete2. A lawyer has more experience than you in law, and having one could put you more at ease. The fees are usually pretty high, and if you have a court-appointed lawyer then you can’t pick a particular lawyer.
3. The sixth amendment includes the right to:
a. a speedy and public trial
b. an impartial jury from the court’s jurisdiction
c. the district of the jurisdiction has already been defined
d. to know about your accusation and the reason for it
e. to have witnesses confront you
f. to be able to get your own witnesses
g. to have counsel
4. I don’t think that Gideon was guilty at his first trial, since there was no evidence that explained what would have happened to the drinks and money that Gideon wasn’t carrying.
5. The jury may think that Gideon was more likely to be guilty because of his past criminal record.
6. Being innocent until proven guilt means that you are only considered guilt if there is enough evidence to convict you without a reasonable doubt.
7. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to convict Gideon. He only had about $25, and an accusation would need to explain what happened to the other drinks and $40, and there was no evidence related to those.
8. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that doesn’t directly support a statement.
9. Gideon wasn’t entitled to a lawyer at his first trial because of the precedent set by the Betts vs. Brady ruling. Gideon had a lawyer after he appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted a retrial.
10. An attorney was able to represent Gideon better than he was able to represent himself.
11. A lawyer knows about laws and legal precedents, and can strategize in way that maximizes your expected value.
12. Hugo Black thought that the fourteenth amendment forced all rights in the sixth amendment to be granted and that it was intended to be that way. He also thought that success in trial shouldn’t depend on how much money someone has.
13. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was not followed when the Florida court didn’t give Gideon a lawyer.
14. The police are required to inform defendants of their rights.
15. If police don’t inform defendants of their rights, then the evidence from the interrogation is inadmissible in court.
16.
a. Betts vs. Brady – This was a similar case, but the Supreme Court ruled that defendants did not have the right to counsel. It was later overturned by Gideon vs. Wainwright.
b. Gideon vs. Wainwright – The Supreme Court overturned the Betts vs. Brady ruling, saying that the fourteenth amendment protected the right to counsel during a trial.
c. Miranda vs. Arizona – The Supreme Court strengthened the Gideon vs. Wainwright ruling, and made evidence from interrogation of a defendant who wasn’t informed of their rights inadmissible in court.
17. The Florida court should have appointed Gideon a lawyer. If states didn’t have to follow the Bill of Rights, then it would pointless to have one. It could even make another situation like the Articles of Confederation.
Helena's ANSWERS Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. While it's probably a good idea to have a lawyer if you are accused of a crime, you are not required to have one (you are allowed to defend yourself). However lawyers are trained in procedure and the law, so they would probably be able to represent you more effectively.
2. Advantages: Lawyers have the proper training in procedure and the law, and lawyers should know the loopholes in the law that could either help you win the case, or reduce your sentence.
Disadvantages: Lawyers are EXPENSIVE, and there is still no guarantee that you will win.
3.
-The right to a speedy trial
-The right to a public trial
-The right to be judged by an impartial jury
-The right to be notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime
-The right to confront witnesses who will testify against the accused
-The right to find witnesses who will speak in favor of the accused
-The right to have a lawyer
4. I am unsure if Gideon was guilty based on the evidence. While his past history would make him very suspicious, I don't remember anyone ever saying that the change and alcohol was found in his possession.
5. Gideon may not receive a fair trial, based on his past history, because the jury pre-assumed that he was guilty. He was a very easy target. He was also very poor, and could not afford a lawyer.
6. This means that when someone is accused of a crime, the jury, their lawyer, and the judge, must assume that this someone is innocent of the crime until sufficient evidence that they are guilty arises.
7. I do not believe that the evidence is strong enough to convict Gideon. The evidence was essentially that he was in the pool hall when things were stolen. There were witnesses who claimed to have seen him with pockets full of change, but I still do not believe this is sufficient because none of the stolen items were found in his possession.
8. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that you must connect to a conclusion through inference.
9. Clarence Gideon was not technically correct in his assertion that the court must provide him with a lawyer. He was incorrect because this only applied to the supreme court, and he was being tried by the state.
Helena's ANSWERS Part 2:
ReplyDelete10. The lawyer was able to effectively argue in Gideon's favor, and point out the discrepancies in the council's argument and evidence.
11. It is important to have a lawyer because they are trained in the law, and court procedure. They are also trained to review evidence and find flaws.
12. Justice Hugo Black believed that Gideon was correct in his appeal, and deserved the fair trial that he did not receive.
13. The 14th amendment requires the states to provide equal protection under the law of all citizens, no matter their sex, race, or income level. This applied to Gideon because he had the right to equal protection, regardless of the fact that he couldn't afford a lawyer.
14. It is now required that as someone is being arrested, the police make them aware of their Miranda Rights. They are told that they have the right to an attorney, and that they may be appointed one if they cannot afford one.
15. If a suspect is not read their Miranda rights before information is released, any evidence that is found during interrogation (or any other time before their rights are read), will not be accepted as evidence in court.
16.
Powell v. Alabama: The United States Supreme Court decided that in a capital trial, the defendant(s) must be given access to a lawyer upon their request, regardless if they are able to afford one or not.
Betts v. Brady: Betts, who was accused of robbery, was convicted after he was forced to defend himself in court, due to the fact that he could not afford a lawyer, and was denied council by the court.
Gideon v. Wainwright: After being convicted of robbery, Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court because he believed that he did not receive a fair trial, because he was not appointed a lawyer by the court. Eventually, it became a requirement in state courts for council to be provided to the defendants if they could not afford their own.
Miranda v. Arizona: It was decided by the court that information gained during interrogation or otherwise by a suspect would only be admissible in court if the suspect had be made aware of his/her right to council, and several other rights that would later be called "Miranda Rights", BEFORE the information was gained.
17. No, the state court of Florida wasn't justified when they denied Gideon council during his trial. The Supreme Court eventually overturned the state court's decision because they would otherwise be denying a man his rights defined in the constitution; and why was it that one could receive council in Supreme Court cases regardless of their income, but not in state cases?
1.It is not a must but better for you to have one.
ReplyDelete2. two advantages are the lawyer has more experience than you in the law and you couldn't have to do it all by your self. the advantages are sometimes you don't have the choice of which lawyer you want and its expensive.
3.Right to speedy trial, right to impartial jury, right to be informed to the nature of accusation, right to to be confronted with the witnesses against him, right have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
4. no i don't think he was guilty based on that evidence because he could have got the coins from anywhere.
5. because he was a homeless and was known for taking small things
6.it means you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
7.i don't think it is strong enough because all they have is that he was there and a homeless that previous stuff.
8. evidence that doesn't directly support the statement.
9.yes because everyone has a right to a lawyer to represent him.
10 he was able to represent him more professionally
11. it is important because the lawyer knows about the law more and can fight for your right.
12. he thought he was right and supported him.
13. the fourteenth amendment was applied because it states no one can be dined their rights.
14. the police has to inform them of their rights.
15.if the police don't tell them then they can turn against them and say they were not informed.
16. Bett v. Brady - supreme court ruled that defendant did not have the right to counsel.
Gideon v. Wainwright- turned the Betts v. Brady because the fourteenth amendment protected the right to counsel during a trial.
Miranda v. Arizona - strengths Gideon v. Wainwright
17. the Florida court was not justified for not appointing Gideon a lawyer. the Supreme court overturned the Florida court decision because they didn't follow the bill of rights
1. If you are accused of a crime you have the right to an attorney, as stated in the 6th amendment. However, you don’t NEED to have an attorney; it is not required.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: Lawyers know the law a lot better than you do, so they will be able to help a lot. Also, they can help build a strong defense in your case that you might not be able to build on your own.
Disadvantages: Hiring a lawyer gets expensive. If you have limited funds like a lot of people do it may be hard to hire a good lawyer. Also, if the defendant and the lawyer do not get along it may cause tension throughout the case and not serve for the best outcome.
3. Right to a speedy trial, right to a public trial, impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, to have the assistance of counsel
4. I think Clarence Gideon was guilty because he has numerous pounds of change in his pockets and, based on his history, he was already a criminal.
5. Based on Gideon’s history he might not receive a fair trial because he was already a convicted felon.
6. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has to use proof and witnesses to show the jury that you are guilty of the crime.
7. I don’t think the evidence that Gideon had pockets full of change was strong enough to convict him. If no one saw him actually break into the pool hall and steal the change then the jury should’ve demanded more evidence.
8. Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to the conclusion or verdict. With circumstantial evidence there can be more than one explanation to the piece of evidence brought to the table, such as a fingerprint. Usually, a prosecutor will need more than one piece of circumstantial evidence for it to be considered relevant in the case.
ReplyDelete9. Gideon wasn’t right in his assertion that the court must provide him a lawyer because his case was a state trial, not federal. Federal cases are the only cases stated in which someone has the right to counsel. However, Justice Black found that it was stated in the Bill of Rights that someone can’t be denied the right to counsel (not stating whether the case was state or federal).
10. The attorney poked holes in the states case, like the money that was stolen was a lot of change to fit into just 2 pants pockets.
11. Lawyers know the law and know how to defend cases, even if there isn’t much to defend. Lawyers will find things in the case that you can’t that will help you greatly.
12. Justice Black supported Gideon’s appeal because he felt that everyone had a right to counsel according to the Bill of Rights, whether it was a federal or state case. Black was the main reason why Gideon won his appeal trial.
13. The 14th amendment says that people cannot be denied their rights and freedoms, including right to counsel. This is applied in this case because Gideon was denied the right to counsel.
14. The Miranda warning is rights that a citizen has that they must be aware of before they say anything that could affect their trial, such as compelled self-incrimination. These rights include the right to remain silent, that anything the suspect says can be used against them, and that the suspect has the right to counsel.
15. If someone is not informed of their rights they may still be interrogated and police can us the knowledge gained from the suspect, but they can’t use the suspects statements to incriminate him or her in a trial.
16. Case Notes
Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that
defendants in capital cases are entitled to
an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) The trial judge denied Betts the right to counsel, forcing Betts to represent himself. This case was overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required to provide counsel for defendants who can’t afford it themselves.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Supreme Court found that any statement made by a defendant can be used against them in a trial, only if prosecution can prove that the defendant was informed of the Miranda rights.
17. No, the Florida court was not justified when it denied a court-appointed lawyer for Gideon. It is found in the 6th amendment that citizens have the right to counsel and the 14th amendment states that citizens can’t be denied their rights and freedoms, and this is why the Supreme Court overturned Florida’s original decision.
1. Yes you do need an attorney. You need an attorney because he knows the details of the justice system, how to properly question and present facts in a way that makes you look innocent. They are also just someone who will be on your side, and when you are facing down a room of people who are all judging you or trying to send you to prison, that help is important.
ReplyDelete2. One advantage of having a lawyer is that they most likely know a lot more about laws and the justice system then you do. Another advantage of having a lawyer is that because they know about laws, the justice system, arguing a cause, questioning people, and other useful things, they can help keep innocent people out of jail. One disadvantage of having a lawyer is that some are not well trained and could hurt your case. Another disadvantage is that some lawyers might not care about you and just see you as another case; therefore, he or she would not put much effort in your case.
3. Right to a speedy trial, Right to a public trial, Right to an impartial jury, Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, Right to be confronted with the witness against him or her, Right to have comp compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and right to have Assistance Council for his or her defense
4. I do not think that Gideon was guilty based off the information presented. All the information presented was circumstantial evidence. There was no real proof of Gideon’s guilt except for an eye witness, who only said Gideon had change in his pocket. Gideon was not carrying the drinks.
5. Gideon has a history with crime. He had been imprisoned several times before. This record, coupled with his low social standing and lack of money were what lead him to have an unfair trial.
6. This means that until you have been proven, by evidence, of being guilty by a court of law everyone must assume that you are in fact innocent.
7. I do not believe that the evidence was enough to convict Gideon. All the evidence was circumstantial. All the evidence that I heard of was that someone saw Gideon with pockets full of coins. That could be explained many different ways. I do not believe that they found the stolen soda cans and other stolen items either.
8. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which other facts are inferred from.
9. Yes, because in the Constitution it says that states cannot take away a person’s rights.
10. The lawyer was able to go back and research Gideon’s case. He was able to find information and explain the previous information.
11. A lawyer knows about laws and the legal system. This skill and knowledge will help your case considerably.
12. He thought he was a perfect case for trying to push his beliefs of equal rights for people of all social class into the public eye.
13. The fourteenth amendment has a section that says that states and local governments cannot deny a person’s life, liberty, or property. This amendment helped make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. This amendment was the foundation of Gideon’s case that he should be allowed a lawyer.
14. The police give the “Miranda Warning” in this warning they explain rights, such as the right to an attorney.
15. If the police do not inform a person of their rights and got a statement then the defendant can have the statement be not allowed to be presented as proof of guilt.
16. Powell vs. Alabama-This case determined that in a capital trial, a defendant must have counsel if he or she asks for it as of due process.
Betts vs. Brady-This case denied an attorney to the defendants. It was overruled by Gideon vs. Wainwright
Gideon vs. Wainwright-The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts cannot deny counsel to anyone. This is required by the sixth amendment.
Miranda vs. Arizona- It was decided that information gathered by people who did not know that they had a right to counsel would not be admissible in court.
17. The Florida court was not justified when they denied Gideon his right to an attorney. The reason that the Supreme Court overturned this ruling was it went against the Bill of Rights which says that States do not have the power to take away a citizen’s rights, such as the right to an attorney.
ReplyDelete1. An attorney is not necessary but is advisable. If you wish to represent yourself that is your right, but lawyers are suggested due to their knowledge of the law and will only help you win your case.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: A lawyer can give you legal council and he is a practiced representative who will better serve/ argue your case in the court of law then you would
Disadvantages: If you are appointed a lawyer of the state he will serve you little since he is under paid and over worked and therefore will be doing your case with tons of other and he may be no good too. Also a lawyer will not know everything about your case, whether this is because you chose to not disclose all details or left one out, which means there is a possibility he could mess up your story or call on evidence that is not viable due to knowledge he knows not of. The lawyer would basically be trying to solve a puzzle for the jury that was missing a couple pieces which would not end well for your case.
3. The rights to: a speedy trial, a public trial, an impartial jury, vicinage (defendants be tried by juries and in the district in which the crime was committed), notice of accusation (A criminal defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.), confrontation (to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.), compulsory process (the right to call witnesses in his favor.) and assistance of counsel (lawyer)
4. Personally based on his history and the evidence I believe him to be guilty but legally speaking and had I been on the jury I would have said there was not enough evidence to convict him. All they went on is a bulge in his pants and his history. No physical proof was given that ever linked the bulge in his pocket to the stolen goods. This case was based off only of pure speculation.
5. Since he was known to have been a petty criminal a jury would be biased against him since his history would be proof and reason enough for them to decide he was guilty.
6. It means that the defendant is innocent unless proven by the prosecution to be guilty with viable and legally gotten evidence that proves guiltiness beyond doubt. The defendant is innocent as a default so that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
7. No since there was not enough evidence to convict him. All they went on is a bulge in his pants and his history. No physical proof was given that ever linked the bulge in his pocket to the stolen goods. This case was based off only of pure speculation and circumstantial evidence.
8. evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact
9. Technically no, not at that time. In federal cases you could be appointed a lawyer due to the constitution saying so but until this incident this only applied to federal cases so the court was right to refuse Gideon at the time. But the case was made that this right from the Bill of Rights, our countries basic most rights, also applied to states due to the 14th amendment which said states could not refuse their citizens the most basic of rights. This was debated in the supreme court and eventually was unanimously agreed upon. Today both in state and federal court you have the right of counsel appointed by the state.
10. Argue the case and poke holes in the prosecution’s case
ReplyDelete11. It is important so that you have legal counsel and someone to argue your case and poke holes in the prosecution’s so that you may go free. You know little of the legal system and doings of courts or how best to argue and debate so you give this responsibility for a trained professional.
12. He thought that Gideon was in the right and that this case would give him the opportunity once again to try to convince the justices of his way of thinking concerning the Bill of right applying to states due to the 14th amendment.
13. But the case was made that this right from the Bill of Rights, our countries basic most rights, also applied to states due to the 14th amendment which said states could not refuse their citizens the most basic of rights.
14. Through the police’s reading of their Miranda Rights.
15. The evidence from the interrogation (or any other time before their rights are read) cannot be used in any cases in the court of law.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) The Supreme Court ruled that whether a lawyer was granted to a defendant when he was in federal court but not necessarily in state court if state law says other wise except in special circumstances.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys and further more must uphold the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Supreme Court decided that information gained during interrogation or otherwise by a suspect could only be used as evidence in court if the suspect had be made aware of his right to council along with a couple other rights that would later be called "Miranda Rights", before the information was gained with the prove of the defendant understanding and waving the read rights.
17. No the Florida court was not justified in not giving Gideon legal counsel. Technically if going by Betts vs. Brady they were but if going by the constitution they were not. The Supreme court over turned the states decision since the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government, explained in the 14th amendment (states must give citizens basic rights and the Bill of rights are this countries basic rights to all) so as is a basic right in the Bill of Rights the state had to give Gideon legal council.
1. You can represent yourself but its recommended that you use a lawyer for really important cases.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: They are more experienced in law. They also can make you feel a little calmer in the court room.
Disadvantages: They can charge pretty hefty fees. If the court appoints you a lawyer that mean you are unable to pick your own.
3. The sixth amendment states you have the following rights:
a. a speedy and public trial
b. an impartial jury from the court’s jurisdiction
c. the district of the jurisdiction is already shown
d. to know what your accused of and why
e. witness confrontation
f. to be able to get your own witnesses
g. to have counsel
4. No, because he wasn’t convicted da first time around.
5. The court may have convicted him becase of his criminal record.
6. Meaning you aren’t pronounced guilty unless there is unmistakable evidence.
7. Yes because the charges didn’t fit the crime and the evidence was lacking.
8. Circumstantial evidence is Indirect evidence, which leads to a conclusion but not directly prove it fact.
9. Yes, since the 6th amendment says that every person has the right to an attorney and to top it the 14th amendment enforces it.
10. Defend Gideon using evidence and clear doubt within the jury.
11. They are able to defend you better than you would yourself.
12. That no matter what the case was he had the right to an attorney
13. Miranda rights
14. The police arresting them are suppose to state their rights.
15. Then the evidence in interrogation isn’t valid in court.
16. Betts vs. Brady –The Supreme Court ruled that defendants did not have the right to counsel. It was later overturned by a similar case (Gideon vs. Wainwright.)
Gideon VS Wainwright (1963): The court says due to rights a defendant that is too poor to provide their own lawyer is to be appointed one.
Miranda VS Arizona (1966): court rules that the policeman making the arrest is to state the rights of the arrested.
17.No, they knew he wasn’t able to afford his own lawyer so in that case it was wrong to make him defend himself.
1.yes because the constitution says through the 6th and the 14 amendment that you have the right to legal counsel and that the states have to follow the laws that are set out by the constitution.
ReplyDelete2.List 2 advantages and 2 disadvantages of having a lawyer
they can help find things that you might have missed when going over you case
they know a lot about the laws so they know how to interpret the law so that it goes in your favor
they cost a lot of money
sometimes if they are inexperienced they could misinterpret a law and you could end up in jail
3.List the 7 rights contained in this Amendment
speedy and public
informed of the nature and cause of the accusations
impartial jury
trial in the state the crime was committed
confronted by witnesses
compulsory process of getting witnesses in the defendants favor
assistance of counsel for defense
4.i think he was innocent
5.yes because he already done crimes like and so the jury could have already decided he was guilty before they heard the evidence
6.that the jury have to think that the person is innocent until they have evidence to think otherwise.
7.no because no one actually found him with the money all the had was a witness who said he had really full pockets.
8.it is evidence that puts a person or an item at a place but is not evidence like a eyewitness
9.yes because the 6th amendment states that a person needs counsel.
10.he was able to point out facts like how his pockets were too small to hold that much change
11.so that you know your rights and you don't incriminate yourself without protection or the counsel so that you know what your options are.
12.they brought it into the supreme court but kept the florida judges ruling
13.it applies all the constitutions laws to the states; which means that they would have to apply the 6th amendment in the case.
14. because the officers are required by law to say their Miranda rights when they are being arrested which tell them that they have a right to a lawyer.
15.they can't use the testimony in court
Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that
defendants in capital cases are entitled to
an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) the supreme court determined that they didn't need legal counsel
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) supreme court determined that gideon should have received a court appointed attorney
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) supreme court found that the police can't use interrogations when the person is not told their right to the 5th amendment; no self incrimination
17. Using the information collected about the court cases and the Constitution as
supporting evidence, answer the following question:
a. Was the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer?
ƒ If you answered no, then explain why the Supreme Court overturned the
Florida court’s decision and their reasoning for doing so.
no because in the 6th amendment of the constitution it says that in criminal cases they have the right to legal counsel
ƒ If you answered yes, then explain how the Gideon case departed from
earlier Supreme Court decisions.
1. You do not need a lawyer, but you should have one.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: they will try to keep you from going to jail and they have more experience dealing with the law.
Disadvantages: May lose your case or cant afford to pay your lawyer.
3. Sixth Amendment:
• Quick trial
• Impartial jury
• A jury of the state, where the crime was committed.
• They must be informed why they are being accused
• Can obtain a witness that is on their side.
• Have the aid of Counsel for his defense.
• They can confront there witness against them
4. No, I do not think that he was guilty because of the information that was given.
5. Based on his passed he might not have no receive a fair trial because he committed a lot of crimes before.
6. It means that if you don’t have proof, that could prove someone was guilty. They will remain innocent, until proven otherwise.
7. No, I don’t think that it was strong enough evidence or he would have been put in jail.
8. It is evidence in which can be connected to facts.
9. He was wrong then, because the constitution did not specifically state that.
10. The attorney was able to defend him, by finding evidence to defend his case.
11. It is important because they have more experience dealing with the law, and they will find information to defend your case.
12. He thought that Gideon was right to be appointed a lawyer.
13. The 14th Amendment applied to his case because no can be denied their rights to obtain a lawyer.
14. Miranda Rights.
15. They cannot use anything the person says, against them.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932): The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942): The United States Supreme Court was denied to counsel to poor defendants when prosecuted by a state.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): 6th Amendment of the Constitution to provide criminal cases for defendants who were incapable of affording their own attorneys.
Miranda v. Arizona: The government authorities need to inform individuals of their 5th Amendments constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. (Miranda Rights).
17. A. Yes, the Florida court was justified when they denied Gideon a court- appointed lawyer because it was not a law that they had to give someone a lawyer, if they could not afford one.
1. You do not need to have one but it is always better to have one...unless for some reason you dont want to win
ReplyDelete2. Lawyers are good to have because you dont have to learn all about the law yourself so you have some backup. They will help you navigate through the legal system. Some lawyers are not very well trained but their ads say they are. The lawyers will not care for the case and slack off.
3.The right to a speedy and public trial
The trial will be held in the state and district the crime had been committed.
Impartial jury over a judge
Assistance of counsel
See the witnesses against them
Necessary for the accused to get witnesses for their defense
The accused is informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
4. I do not think we was guilty because i dont think they had enough evidence to prove him guilty
5. He probably wouldn't be given a fair trial because being convicted before his trial wont give him a fair chance
6.It means you are innocent until you are charged because if they dont find any evidence they cant prove you guilty
7. i dont think so because they only have a few things. he was homeless and things from his past. they dont have enough information
8. this is evidence that other facts are used to get the evidence
9. You are not allowed to take a persons rights away
10. The lawyer was only able to go back on previous information and use it in the future
11.A lawyer has a lot of knowledge about law and rights and could easily help you in a case that has to do with law
12. He thought that the case was an easy way to show equal rights for the people of his social class
13. The fourteenth amendment states that nobodies rights can be denied
14. The police have to inform the person being accused that they do have rights
15. The police are not able to use anything the suspect uses against them because they didn't read their rights
16. Betts vs Brady- The Supreme Court denied the counsel to poor defendants when prosecuted by the state
Gideon vs Wainwright- the sixth amendment to provide criminal cases for the defendants that don't have the money to afford their own attorney
Miranda vs. Arizona- the authorities need to inform the suspects of their fifth amendment rights
17. A. No they already knew he couldn't afford his own attorney
Hi, I'm still Felix Mak
ReplyDelete1. Yes, you do need an attourney, otherwise you cannot properly defend yourself.
2. A lawyer knows what they are doing.
You are aloud to converse with someone else to keep you from going insane
You cannot defend your answers, your lawyer does
Lawyers are stereotypically crap
3. Speedy Trial, an impartial Jury, to be informed of what he is incriminated of, to have a lawyer.
4. No
5. Because of Prejudice, or other sorts of reasons.
6. That until someone shows evidence, you are innocent.
7. Maybe. I don't have a strong enough understanding of the law to find out.
8. Evidence that is there because you were there.
9. Yes, because that is in the 6th amendment
10. Actually properly defend himself.
11. Because they can defend you. I think we explained this.
12. Because the Court said that "you cannot have one"
14. The police are required to read off the Miranda rights.
15. They can sue.
16. No, and the Supreme court said so because it's in the Constitution that you need a lawyer.
1.) Technically, you do not need an attorney because some people choose to be their own attorney/defend themselves, but in the constitution it states that everybody has the right to council no matter how rich or poor you are.
ReplyDelete2.) ADVANTAGES:
- A lawyers has the training, education, and the experience on how to defend you, which is better than trying to defend yourself which works in your favor.
-They file your legal papers so you do not have to
DISADVANTAGES:
-If you have a bad lawyer, you could be found guilty/lose out on a settlement
-they take a third of whatever your settlement is
3.) - enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
- by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime was committed
-which district shall have been ascertained
-be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
-be confronted with the witnesses against him
-have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
-have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense
4.) I do believe that Clarence Gideon was guilty. Even though it was unfair that he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer, it was obvious that he was guilty with all the change in his pockets. Plus, the judge probably knew that he had gotten in trouble ever since he was a kid so he probably wouldn't believe him to be innocent.
5.) He might not've received a fair trial because he was poor and couldn't pay for council, plus they wouldn't appoint council for him.
6.) You have to presume someone innocent until you have enough evidence to prove that you're guilty.
7.) No, the evidence is not strong enough to convict Gideon guilty because they can't prove that Gideon got all that change from the jukebox
8.) Circumstantial evidence is when you don't have an eye witness to prove someone guilty but the circumstances point to the person committing the crime
9.) No, Clarence Gideon was not right because he was charged under the state law and under state law he did not have the right to an attorney.
10.) He did more research and pointed things out that were not said before.
11.) It's important to have a lawyer because they can usually defend you better than you can defend yourself and keep you from being found guilty.
12.) Hugo Black believed that everybody had equal rights and that Gideon had a right to an attorney, since it is in the US Constitution
13.) The 14th Amendment says that a state is not allowed to deny any person with jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which was what the state of Florida was doing to Clarence Gideon so they used that against Florida.
14.) The police recited the Miranda rights like you have the right to be silent, you have the right to an attorney, etc.
15.) That case can be thrown out of court and the person can walk free.
16.) Betts v. Brady - denied council to poor defendants when they prosecuted by a state, later overruled
Gideon v. Wainwright-they denied him an attorney because he was poor, but not poor enough
Miranda v. Arizona- Miranda was questioned without being told he was allowed and attorney
17.)At the time (in the 60's) the court did have a right to deny Gideon an attorney because under the state law they were allowed to deny him an attorney, but the supreme court later overruled it.
Do lawyers really take 1/3 of what you get in a settlement? Wow.
DeleteA bad lawyer is also very bad.
1. it’s not necessary but it defiantly helps. You can argue for yourself but a professional that know how to present evidence and defend you will probably have a better chance of winning.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: A trained professional who knows what he’s doing and he probably has experience in a court setting so he wouldn’t get nervous lie you. Disadvantages: Price and winning the case comes down on how much they prepare for it and you have no control of that.
3.
a. The right to a speedy trial
b. The right to an impartial jury of the state and district
c. The right to be confronted with the witnesses against them
d. The right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
e. The right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense
f. The right to a public trial
g. The right to understand the cause of accusation
4. No I don’t because I don’t know how it’s even possible to stuff 50-60$ worth of change in your pockets, plus the drinks wouldn’t fit in their either!
5. He was poor and had record as a kid.
6. It means no matter what, even if it’s really obvious, the one being prosecuted is not guilty until proven so by the court.
7. No I don’t I just think he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and he just happened to have a lot of change on him
8. Evidence where an inference is required to connect it to the conclusion.
9. No because he was being tried by a state court not a federal court.
10. He was able to argue the case and point out facts.
11. So you have a professional by your side that can tell you your rights and help you win
12. He agreed with Gideon
13. The Fourteenth Amendment says that you have a right to counsel
14. The police will tell them when they are arrested.
15. Then they can’t use anything against them in their trial.
16. Cases:
Powell v. Alabama (1932):The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney. Betts v. Brady (1942): The Supreme court decided that attorney would be given on special circumstances. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The Supreme Court decided that lawyer are always required. Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Supreme Court decided that you must be told your rights.
17.
A. Yes I do believe they could justify it because at the time there was no law where you needed a lawyer for a state case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1. yes, it is very unfair having an attorney against you that knows what they are doing, it basically makes you guilty every single time, even when you are not
ReplyDelete2. Advantages
1.you have more of a chance of being deemed innocent
2. they can help you compile information to help prove you innocent
Disadvantages
1. you will have to pay for them?
2. The attorney might not even be goof enough to do anything about it
3. List the 7 rights contained in this Amendment
right to speedy trial
right to public trial
to be judged by impartial jury
being told the nature and circumstances of the accused crime
confronting witnesses who testify against the accused
to find witnesses who will speak in your favor
to have a lawyer
4. yes I think he is
5. he has a long background of crimes
6. That you are innocent until you have been deemed guilty
7. No it is not, unless they found him with the stolen goods
8. Evidence which uses and inference to connect it to a fact
9. Kind of, for his certain case he was not, but for a federal case he would have been
10. What was an attorney able to do for Gideon in the second trial that
he was not able to do for himself in the first? He was trained to win cases so he did a better job than Gideon
11. If you are charged with a crime, why is it important to have a
lawyer? They are better at compiling information, and argue for your innocence
12. He believed it was right and tried to make it a right
13. States can’t deny citizens fundamental rights, which means that the right to have a lawyer applies
14. The police read them their rights
15. What happens if the police do not inform the person of their rights? They can use that as a way to become not convicted, because it was misinformation in courts
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) the court decided that they were not required to give people attorneys, and that this is not what the 14th amendment meant
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon was convicted then it was overturned because they believed that he should get an attorney
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the government did not read her her rights rights (fifth amendment) so she pleaded that it was an unfair trial
17. Using the information collected about the court cases and the Constitution as
supporting evidence, answer the following question:
a. Was the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer?
no it was not, because as it was stated in the 14th amendment that you can’t deny the citizens their rights and one of the rights was the right to have an attorney.
1. You are given to right to have an attorney, but it is not necessarily required for you to have one. You are also given the option to represent yourself.
ReplyDelete2. Having a lawyer augments your argument especially since lawyers know the laws very well. A lawyer is also experienced in court cases, and may very well have already handled your case in the past. Lawyers however, can be very expensive. Also, your lawyer can end up hurting your case by giving up on your case and leaving you a mess to handle.
3. The right to a speedy and public trial, the righto be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to right to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her, the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and the right to have assistance for his or her defense in the Assistance of Counsel.
4. I do not think Clarence Gideon was guilty based on the evidence presented because there was no evidence that had a strong connection with the drinks and money of which Clarence Gideon had in his possession.
5. Gideon may not receive a fair trial because of his past criminal record. The Jury may be judgmental of his past criminal record and make bias decisions.
6. The phrase, “presumed innocent before proven guilty” basically means that before there is enough evidence to be sure that someone if guilty, there are to be treated as if they were innocent.
7. No, because the evidence does not explain his possession of drinks and the money enough to convict Gideon.
8. Circumstantial evidence is proof that can lead to an inference about a conclusion of fact.
9. Yes he was, because according to our constitution, anyone accused has the right to either represented themselves, or have a lawyer appointed to them by court.
10. The attorney was able to defend and represent Gideon much better than Gideon did because the attorney revealed holes about the accusation.
11. It is importantly to have a lawyer because lawyers know law very well, and can defend you using their knowledge of law. They are also experienced in handling many cases, and may have already handled your cases in the past.
12. Hugo black actually agreed with Gideon, and he proposed his thought that your class, whether rich or poor, you should be given equal justice.
13. The 14th amendment basically states that no matter what your social status or past record is, you cannot be denied a lawyer.
14. The court is required to inform and propose the option for the accused to represent themselves, or have a lawyer be appointed to them.
15. They have the option to bring up the fact that they were misinformed to the court for their benefit.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932)-The Supreme Court determined that the defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942)- Supreme Court ruled states are no required to give people attorneys.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)- States are required to given everyone an attorney.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- If someone if misinformed, then the accusation of things that are said to them beforehand cannot be used in court.
17. No, because they were required to appoint him a lawyer, and states are required to propose the option to represent themselves or having a lawyer appointed to them. States don’t have the right to deny rights to someone regardless or the scenario, and that was why the Supreme Court eventually overturned the decision.
@Alexis Burgett - I never though about the disadvantages of #3 before like that, a lawyer may not always tell or know all the truth. Thats a great analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of a lawyer.
ReplyDelete@Riley Patrick - I agree on #12 with you because someone needed to make a change to enforce the 6th amendment and to make all of the states be uniform in this issue.
Salvi - I disagree with your number 4. How can one person steal that much change in his pockets? Also, he had been convicted before of crimes and never fought as hard as this time.
ReplyDeleteMihn - I forgot about the option to represent yourself. It is an option that not many people choose but it is still there. I think it gives you a disadvantage in some ways, unless you are an experienced lawyer.
Kase- I like how you brought up the idea of how lawyers are not always good in your response to question 2, and the idea of how you can always end up hiring an inexperienced or "bad" lawyer was good too. Lawyers definitely exaggerate their merits in order to be hired more frequently.
ReplyDeleteAlex Weiss- Your responses were incredibly detailed and provided much explanation. I agree with your responses especially with your response to question 17 because no matter what you have done or who you are, you should always be granted legal counsel or at least be offered the option of getting legal counsel.
Aseel- I really liked your detailed explanation to question four. I thought that your reasoning for all evidence was very thought through. I especially liked what you said about the bottles.
ReplyDeleteAlex Weiss- I thought it was very good how in question 4 you stated both your opinion on Gideon's case and the law. This was a very thought out answer.
Response:
ReplyDeleteTennison: I agree with your response to #1! The fact that you said you CAN represent yourself, it's just not advised. Exactly!
Kate: I agree with your answer for #17: even if the court wasn't morally right, they WERE justified at the time.
@Taloren: I agree with what you said too. Gideon didn't have enough evidence against him so he shouldn't have ended up in jail.
ReplyDelete@ Deandra: I agree, lawyers have more experience and expertise with the law than most people who haven't ever been involved n court case
1. Yes. The sixth amendment of the Constitution allows “the accused [to] enjoy the right to… have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: you have someone who is trained in arguing for your case, and they will help you thru all the legal matters. Disadvantages: You have to pay the lawyer, and he or she could have a different argument than you would use to defend yourself.
3. In a criminal prosecution, the defender has a right to a speedy and public trial in front of an impartial jury of his or her peers in the district in which the crime was committed. He or she has a right to the reason of the accusation, a witness in her or her favour, and a counsel for his or her defense.
4. Yes.
5. Since Gideon has a history of petty crime, the jury or judge might have factored that into accusing him of the crime.
6. Any person who is convicted of a crime should be assumed not guilty until a fair trial proves that he or she isn’t innocent.
7. I don’t think that there was enough evidence to convict Gideon, and that his history probably factored into the decision of the court.
8. When you don’t have enough evidence to convict someone.
9. Yes. He is given the right to a lawyer in the sixth amendment, and by the fourteenth amendment all his Constitution rights are protected from the state.
10. Gideon was not educated about the Constitution, so his lawyer in the Supreme Court was able to argue his case using this fundamental document much better than Gideon did himself.
11. Lawyers are trained to argue cases, so they will get your point across better than you will.
12. Justice Black was intrigued by Gideon’s cases because he was proponent of 14th Amendment rights, and was upset when a similar case, Betts v Brady, did not pass in his favor.
13. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of all citizens within their states, so in this case Gideon applied it to his 6th Amendment rights.
14. To know about your right to an attorney you have to be familiar with the declaration.
15. The accused can plead misinformed.
16. Important Court Cases Involving Right to Counsel
a. Powell v Alabama- defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney
b. Betts v Brady- denied counsels to defendants when they were prosecuted by a state.
c. Gideon v Wainwright- assures 6th Amendment rights to all citizens.
d. Miranda v Arizona- if the defendant is not told their rights, the prosecution cannot use anything they say as evidence.
17. No. Gideon is given the right to a lawyer in the sixth amendment, and by the fourteenth amendment all his Constitution rights are protected from the state, which was why the Supreme Court overturned Florida’s decision.
for question one do you think a possible that the jury and judge would be more impressed if you defended your self? Also were you looking for the Constitution for #14 if not how does the delectation relate?
DeleteI forgot about how Justice Black's opinion lost in Betts v Brady... that alone is really good support for question 12.
DeleteYou're answers to #2 #12 were thoughtful. The disadvantage of your lawyer having a different argument for you is something I didn't think about, but I can see it happening.
DeleteAlex Weiss: I completely and utterly agree with your number 1 answer. You said exactly what I said, that even though you can represent yourself in a court of law, and that it is your right, it is not advisable. This is because a lawyer may know more about the law then you and thus will help you win.
ReplyDeleteMinh: I agree with your answer to number 4, that Gideon was not guilty, another point you could make was that 6 pounds of change is a lot to fit into those tiny pockets.
1. By law you are given the right to had can attorney to help you make you view clear in the court room. But if you do not want an attorney you are not required to have one.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: they would be able to put your case in terms that the judge might better understand. Also they might be able to know better strategies to pre swaying the judge to your side. Disadvantages: they where not there so they might not be able to says all the details or what happened. Also they would maybe not be able to tell your personal perspective as well as you would like them too.
3. The 7 rights. 1: Any one who is accuses of a crime will have the rich to a speedy and public trial 2: You had ether righ to have your trial in front of a jury of the state and citric where the crime took place 3: That the district where the crime happened will have been previously ascertained by law 4: That the accused will know the nature and the cause of the accusations. 5: you have the the right to be confronted with the witnesses that are a against him 6: THe right to have a com compulsory process for obtaining witness in his favor 7: The right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense
4. I do believe he is guilty according to his first trial but he was correct about his rights in the court room and because of that he got a another trail
5.Because he previously had done some crimes and he was pretty old a poor he did not have much to lose
6. the you have the rich to be not treated the you are guilty until you have your fair trial and proven guilty
7. I think it was because he did make such good points as well he knew his rights and made the effort to make sure he was given his fare chance
8. IT is evidence that is only effecting the inference and is not effecting the actual topic that is being debated so more or less evidence that is not directly related to the actual debate
9. Yes he was right because he knew his rights that he has as an american citizen and even though he might look guilty and be poor he still had his rights and so he brought that up and addressed his mistreatment
10. he was able to better asses the trial and be able to better represent his side of the case and he can better approach the judge and help Gideon win the trial
11. because even if you did or did not do the crime you news to be well represented and will be able to help you as much as you can. As well as they would be able to look at a different perspective ten the actual person and be able to put emotions aside
12. He did agree that he should be allowed to have a an attorney and be well represented in the court room
13. Because the 14 amendment is talking about protecting the liberties of a person and tab they are treated equally no matter who they are
14. They need to have already know this and understand there right as an individual and what they have the rich to be treated because some people might address that for the but it is a choice to have an attorney or not so you have to make it clear if you want one or not.
15. then there would be a retrial or an evaluation of what happened and try and do what should have happened.
16. Powell V. Alabama (1932)- the supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney. Betts V. Brady (1942) - this is when Gideon mad it clear that he should have been appointed attorney in his trail and he was not. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - He appealed and wanted to be reassessed again. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - It was a case about debating the with amendment
17. A. i said NO because in the trail in florida because they did not fallow all the amendment and because of that i complexity agree that he deserved a second chance for another trail because they did not give him the same change and that is one of the foundation of are government is to treat every one equal so i think because of that he defiantly needed to have another chance.
In response to # 10 did you mean assess
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteYes because I do not fully understand the law in great detail nor have I got to school for law and with that thinking it would be good to a have an attorney on my side.
2.
Disadvantages
They may make the best choices for you
You have to pay them
Advantages
Know more about the law then you do
Have more experience in law then you do
3.
List the 7 rights contained in this Amendment
1. Right to speedy trial
2. Right to public trial
3. Right to an impartial jury
4. Right to know the nature of the accusation
5. Right to know the cause of the accusation
6. Right to witnesses in his favor
7. Right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense
4.
Based on his past history he would if the profile of someone who would commit this theft but I believe that the witness testimony claiming that he had six pounds of change in his pockets was circumstantial evidence for is conviction.
5.
Because he was a nuisance to society and had a history of crimes
6.
That the person is not given the punishment of the crime until he or she is found guilty
7.
No because that is a lot of change to fit into only your pockets, plus the other items he was accused of.
8.
Evidence to a case that points to one suspect but does not enough for their conviction.
9.
Yes his was the loop hoe was that the sixth amendment provided him a lawyer in federal cases and he is entitled to that in state cases too since the fourteenth amendment says that states can’t deny citizens of their federal rights.
10.
He was able get his verdict overturned to not guilty
11.
To have the assistance of counsel for your defense
12.
He agreed and supported the appeal
13.
Because it guarantees citizens their federal rights which in this case gave him the right to a lawyer.
14.
You would have to know about your basic rights thus the rights granted to you by the constitution.
15.
The can plead misinformed
16. Review Handout #2, Important Court Cases Regarding the Right to Counsel.
Encourage students to use the Justice Learning website to complete the handout.
ase Notes
Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that
defendants in capital cases are entitled to
an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) Justice’s ruled that to an attorney is case to case
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) No more case by case approach and gave all the right to attorney
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) all held in custody must be informed of their right to a attorney and that one will be provided if they do not the funds.
17. Using the information collected about the court cases and the Constitution as
supporting evidence, answer the following question:
a. Was the Florida court justified when it denied Gideon a court-appointed lawyer?
No
ƒ If you answered no, then explain why the Supreme Court overturned the
Florida court’s decision and their reasoning for doing so.
Because it was the sixth amendment provided him a lawyer in federal cases and he is entitled to that in state cases too since the fourteenth amendment says that states can’t deny citizens of their federal rights.
ƒ If you answered yes, then explain how the Gideon case departed from
earlier Supreme Court decisions.
@Karen- Why do you think Gideon was guilty just because of his past? I don't think that's enough to convict someone.
ReplyDelete@Alex Hatter- I agree with number 4, there wasn't enough information to convict him.
Kellie Chin:For #2 I did not even think of the disadvantage you proposed. Considering lawyers are fairly expensive these days, having one is a major economic disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteKate Sullivan: For #6 I disagree with you. Just because a defendant is innocent until proven guilty does not mean he is not a prisoner of the state and law. If he does not pay bail he is confined to a jail cell and even if he does he is watched over and confined in what he is allowed to do (like not flying suddenly to Mexico without telling the government of his intentions ect.).
1. Yes so you don’t incriminate yourself
ReplyDelete2. Advantages
• They know the law and they fight for you
Disadvantages
• They can be expensive and there’s a possibility you can still lose the case.
3. 7 rights
• Right to speedy trial
• Right to public trial
• To be judged by impartial jury
• Being told the nature and circumstances of the accused crime
• Confronting witnesses who testify against the accused
• To find witnesses who will speak in your favor
• To have a lawyer
4. No, there wasn’t enough evidence
5. Looking at his past record he didn’t get a fair trial because he was arrested for the same reason he was accused of theft.
6. It means until there is solid facts to prove you did something your innocent.
7. No I don’t think there was enough evidence to convict Gideon because the person saw Gideon with a bottle of wine and change in his pocket. That doesn’t mean he did it he could have bought the wine and in his pockets was just left over change.
8. Circumstantial evidence is facts providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute.
9. Gideon was right because the 6th amendment is proof of him needing a lawyer to proceed with the case.
10. Gideon’s attorney was able to prove him innocent.
11. It is important to have a lawyer when you’re accused of a crime because lawyers are experts on researching the law that governs a particular legal problem.
12. Hugo Black agreed with Gideon’s appeal.
13. It showed that Gideon had rights to a counsel, which is the 14th amendment.
14. The police read them their rights.
15. They can’t use anything against them.
16. Cases
• Powell v. Alabama (1932): The Supreme Court determined that defendants in capital cases are entitled to an attorney.
• Betts v. Brady (1942): The Supreme Court decided that attorney would be given on special circumstances.
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The Supreme Court decided that lawyers are always required.
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Supreme Court decided that you must be told your rights.
17. No, because he needed a lawyer according to the Constitution.
@Ivanna: Your answers really made sense
ReplyDelete@Salvi: I liked your answers but I still don't know why you think Gideon is guilty
Alex Weiss - I agree with you on question four. It's similar to the Casey Anthony trial, where lots of people thought she was guilty but there wasn't enough evidence and it wasn't strong enough to convict. Somebody who would convict Gideon also needs to explain what happened to the drinks.
ReplyDeleteIvanna - Gideon was only carrying about $25 in change, but around $50-$60 was missing from the pool room. What do you think happened to the rest of the money?
Deandra #1: I agree with what you said that you do not need a lawyer but you should have a lawyer, but why do you think you should have a lawyer; what is your reasoning?
ReplyDeleteAnna #4: You stated that you thought he was innocent, but what evidence makes you believe that?
Damarriss: Your answers are simple and easy to understand. Good work.
ReplyDeleteAudra: Yours was really detailed and that tells me that you understand what you were doing. Good Job.
1. You do need an attorney because by law you are entitled to have one. I think they entitle you to have one because most attorneys help you see the bigger and clearer picture. If it were me, I would want one.
ReplyDelete2. Advantages: a lawyer has experience with many cases and probably could fight your case better than you could (by yourself at least) and they know the law up and down.
Disadvantages: You will be paying a lot of money to someone who probably doesn’t care about your case and you may have a lawyer who only cares about the money…not you and your case.
3. You have a right to a speed and public trial. Being aware of what you are accused of, impartial jury, you are allowed to know the witness against you (being introduced), having your own witness, allowed to find a witness on his side, and having assistance with the council in his defense.
4. I don’t necessarily believe he was guilty, just on the simply fact that he wasn’t convicted yet.
5. The obvious answer here is because he was poor.
6. Everyone in court needs to have proof that the person was breaking the law.
7. I don’t think the evidence was strong enough because the only strong piece of evidence that they had was that he was there. But do they actually have proof of what he was doing there?? Hmmm….
8. It is evidence that doesn’t clearly state that someone is guilty, but it pokes at the idea.
9. Most definitely, I mean it clearly states in our CONSTITUTION that everyone is entitled to an attorney. If you don’t believe me, look at the 6th amendment and hey you can even look at the 14th amendment!
10. The attorney was able to defend him strongly with evidence.
11. It is important to have a lawyer because they are the ones who can probably fight your case better than you can!
12. He noticed that his social status shouldn’t have gotten in the way of him getting a lawyer. It’s just wrong!
13. The 14th amendment says that everyone has a right to his or her own lawyer.
14. Miranda Rights
15. The person has a right to state that in court (and boy could that start stuff). I also believe they can ask the police to state their rights to them.
16. Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court determined that
defendants in capital cases are entitled to
an attorney.
Betts v. Brady (1942) The trial judge denied Betts the right to counsel, forcing Betts to represent himself. This case was overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required to provide counsel for defendants who can’t afford it themselves.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Supreme Court found that any statement made by a defendant can be used against them in a trial, only if prosecution can prove that the defendant was informed of the Miranda rights.
17. I don’t think that the Florida court was justified for not appointing him a lawyer. The supreme court however did overthrow Florida Courts decision, because they didn’t follow the bill of rights, and that is a huge “NO,NO!”
Alex Weiss:
ReplyDelete4. I like that you pointed out that there was no physical proof proving that the coins in his pocket had anything to do with the coins at the pool hall. Since you say that based on his history, instead of proof, you would say he is guilty do you think we as people tend to make decisions based on opinion instead of fact?
Rebekah:
7. You point out that they don't have evidence showing what Gideon was doing at the pool hall. I wonder if the police even suspected anyone else of stealing the money, or if they were set on Gideon the whole time.
Comments:
ReplyDeleteSalvi: For number 4 all you say is “yes I think he is.” Why do you think that?. I do not believe he is, but In my answer I explained why. So I am curious to see what you have to say, and what your reasoning is behind that. Your other answers, I found to be very interesting, and with good detail. So if you could explain four a little better, tat would be great!
Felix: You and Salvi seem to have the same answer for number 4. All you said was “no”. like I asked Salvi, I am curious as to why you said no as well. Also in number one you said “you cannot properly defend yourself.” Why do you think that? If you could explain and give evidence to why you think that, that would be great. I like most of your answers though!
@Arianna (2) - I really liked most of your answers but one of your disadvantages (the lawyer one) is not necessarily true in most cases in my opinion.
ReplyDelete@Rebekah (4) - I also really liked your answers but I was kind of confused when you said he wasn’t convicted yet so he's not guilty on number 4
Ariana- for number 4, wouldn't his past history make you think that he was guilty?
ReplyDeleteSalvi- for number 4, do you have an explanation for why you think he is guilty?
Kowsaro: I agree with what you said for answer number four, I didn’t think that Gideon was guilty either.
ReplyDeleteHelena: I agree with your answer for number seven.
Rebekah i like how you brought up his social status in #12 very well done
ReplyDeleteHatter: for # 4 i agree with you he couldn't have had all that change in his pocket its just too heavy and that shouldn't be the only evidence they should go with