Mr. Gideon’s research lead him to find that, “The United States Constitution seemed to give everyone the right to a lawyer” (http://www.ocpd.state.ct.us/Content/Gideon/Gideon%20Story.htm). Once Gideon found that he had a Constitutional leg to stand on he, wrote a letter to the supreme court in hopes that they would hear his case. Gideon was fortunate they decided to hear his case. March 18, 1963, the US Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Gideon had received an unfair trial because he was denied the right to a lawyer.
“ The Court found that the prosecutor’s actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution” (2011, Retrieved on June 30, 2011 from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6263 ).
“ The Supreme Court declared that regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, the suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.”
The government has a legally affirmative duty to reveal justifiable evidence to the defendant to help protect and assure the defendant's right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clauses.
Gault’s attorneys filed for a writ of habeas corpus, and argued that the juvenile code of Arizona was invalid contrary to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
Eventually, the case would reach the United States Supreme Court, who, in an 8-1 decision, would rule “that Gault’s commitment to the State Industrial School was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment”
The In re Gault case held that, "Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the 14th Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the 6th Amendment”
Inmates of Boys’ Training School v Affleck (1972)
Five juvenile inmates filed suit in the United States District Court against the Rhode Island Boys’ Training School
The conditions at the school were challenged indicating various practices violated due process rights.
The reforms ordered by the Court pertained to “solitary confinement, minimal conditions of confinement, rehabilitative treatment, vocational training, psychiatric counseling and drug rehabilitation”
Results of Inmates of Boys’ Training School v Affleck
The United States District Court condemned “solitary confinement, strip cells, and lack of educational opportunities, and held that juveniles have a statutory right to treatment”
Some minimum standards the District Court established included:
Bedding to be changed once a week
Personal hygiene supplies
A change of undergarments and socks every day
Minimum writing materials
Prescription eyeglasses, if needed
Equal access to all reading materials located in the training school
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.
The Court held that the execution of a person under the age of 16 was unconstitutional. Such an act would violate the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
References (1972). Inmates of Boys’ Training School v. Affleck. Retrieved from http://188.8.131.52/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19721700346FSupp1354_11470.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 2011.The Story of Gideon v. Wainwright. Retrieved on June 30, 2011 from http://www.ocpd.state.ct.us/Content/Gideon/Gideon%20Story.htm ’ Batson v. Kentucky, 2011. Retrieved on June 30, 2011 from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6263 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Retrieved on July 1st, 2011 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=373&invol=83 Batson v. Kentucky, 2011. Retrieved on June 30, 2011 from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6263
References Dalton, D. (2007). Inmates of Boys’ Training School v. Lingren. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse . Retrieved from http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=381 In re Gault. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_116 In re Gault. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Gault In re Gault (No. 116). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0001_ZS.html Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Retrieved on July 1st, 2011 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436
References Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Retrieved on July 1st, 2011 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436 Siegel, L.J., & Welsh, B.C. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core (4th ed.). California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). Retrieved on July 25th, 2011. http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/815/