The Role Of Private Prisons During The United States

The Role Of Private Prisons During The United States
In our nation's history, the use of private prisons has played a major role in domestic slave trading. The 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery
in 1865. However, due to the plain language of the 13th Amendment, it is be interpreted in a way that allows slavery so long as it is used as criminal
punishment. The 13th Amendment reads, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Private prisons have been abusing and misusing this
language for years. The Jim Crowe era, which implemented the "convict leasing" system, is a prime example of how private prisons have used prisoners
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
By contrast, DHS's immigration detention program detains around 400,000 people every year. The growth of immigration detention has been
astonishing. In 1994, approximately 6,000 noncitizens were detained per day. The daily average had surpassed 20,000 individuals by 2001 and 33,000
by 2008. To manage the growing detainee population, ICE has increasingly turned to contracted facilities such as for–profit prison corporations. This
growth has allowed private prison companies such as GEO Group (GEO) and CoreCivic (formerly known as CCA) to significantly profit from labor
savings. Private companies are incentivized to cut medical staffing and deny care to maximize shareholder return. Maximizing that return is the
primary goal. These companies have managed to accomplish their goal by forcing their detainees to work and upkeep the facilities for little to no
pay, saving millions in labor costs. In the year 2012, "GEO brought in an estimated $33 to $72 million in profits." CCA, estimated profits ranging
from "$30 to $77 million, or about 25% of the company's total profits." To give some perspective, a facility in Adelanto California, owned and
operated by GEO, would pay $109,865 annually in detainee wages at $1 a day. If GEO were to pay the state's minimum wage, they would be spending
$7,910,280 annually in labor. This gives GEO a total savings of
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Gideon V Wtenwright And The Case Of Gideon V Wainwright
When charged with a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a person has the right to counsel in state
courts. People who are poor, needy or doesn't the means to afford legal counsel for criminal cases that have that right are known as "indigent
defendants." By not providing these people with counsel is a violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Before the case of Gideon v
Wainwright, there were others cases of individuals that were denied the right to counsel. One case in particular, which fell under the Fourteenth
Amendment Rights as well as the Sixth Amendment Rights of the Constitution, Betts v Brady (1942). Betts was indicted on robbery charges in
Carroll County, Maryland. Betts wasn't able to afford an attorney and requested appointed counsel. Betts was told by the judge that it wasn't the
practice in the county unless it was for a murder case or rape. Without counsel Betts pleaded not guilty, represented himself and was sentenced to eight
years by the judge. Betts wasn't well educated and knew nothing about the legal system on how to represent himself in a court of law. While
incarcerated Betts filed a petition against the judge for denying him the right to counsel but it was denied. Betts presented a writ of corpus which was
also denied. The Supreme Court of the United States went back and reviewed Betts case after Gideon filed his case. The decision for Betts case was
eventually

The Case Of James Richardson
Many people are enraged with the U.S. court system and feel that it does its job based on prejudice, unfair, and despicable standards in which it's not
held accountable for. This inserts a fear of the justice system within the people themselves with the resulting lack of trust created. There are countless
cases of injustice that have made their way through the U.S. Court System such as the case of James Richardson was spent 21 years in jail for being
accused for the poisoning and deaths of his 7 kids only to be let out later on after the real criminal had confessed to the crimes. Another crime that can
be put on display is the case of James Bain who spent 35 years in prison (which is the longest time served by anyone who has been wrongfully
convicted) for being wrongfully accused of multiple crimes including rape and was sent to prison for life only to finally be granted the use of
DNA evidence review for his case which eventually was the deciding factor that gave him his freedom back. The case of Daryl Burton sickens many
people to the core after he served 24 years in prison after being charged with murder. It was later found out that the police who were on Burton's case
pushed the "witnesses" to go against Burton and accuse him of the false crime. There are countless examples that can be used to show the devastating
mistakes the court system has made over the years and the seemingly lack of effort to not only get it right the first time but to consider the importance of

The Fifth Amendment's Influence on Miranda v. Arizona
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is
what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was
arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly
admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda's confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually
brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona,
because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth
amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the
defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process. The court argued that the case was not about whether Miranda was guilty of the
charges or not (he obviously confessed). Rather they argued that the case was about the way in which the interrogation was derived. The court's ruling
was meant to deal with the mistreatment of suspects by policemen during interrogation. Policemen are notorious for mistreating suspects in questioning
(alovardohistory). Prior

Sample Resume : ' Miranda Rights
Miranda Rights
Sammy Alvarado
Profr. T. Gravatt
AGGE 146
11/06/2014
II. Introduction
I initiated my quest for answers in the one place you can count on to get answers, Turlock
Police Department. I went to the newly opened Public Safety Department. I got to the window
where a nice gray haired front desk officer/attendant asked me what he could help me with. I
told him, my name is Sammy Alvarado and I was a student at Modesto Junior College and
wanted to see the possibility of having an officer to be kind and help me in my endeavor. He
said that he could help me that he was retired though if he could help me. I said if you were an
active officer and had applied Miranda that was the important part to me and explained to him on
that the questions I was going to apply to him were out of a guideline given to us, he smiled and

told me that I wasthe second student that day there for the same reason and would be glad to help
me.
III. Report
I started by introducing my self again my name is Sammy Alvarado and he introduced
himself as Tom Vincent, and gave me some bio on him; served in the TurlockPolice Department
for 31 years and in L.A. P.D. (Los Angeles Police Department) for 2 years and retired just in
2008, he currently is a volunteer Police Officer in the Turlock Police Department, he is from
the city of Los Banos, CA. originally and his wife is native of Turlock, CA.
In the

Fracture In The Law Movie Analysis
Fracture in the Law Saurya Neupane Campbell University RTP Campus Author Note APA format is why I will never major in law or psychology.
Abstract The movie Fracture is about a brilliant and successful aerospace engineer who lives in Los Angeles. Ted Crawford is very detail oriented
individual who can find the slightest imperfection with anything and has the capability to extort or miniplate that small flaw and use it to his own
benefit. When he discovers that his wife having an affair with Rob Nunnally a detective for the LAPD he showed his true colors. Later that night
Crawford decides to takes matters into his own hands when he confronts his wife about her affair and shoots her in the head Keywords: Fracture in the
Law When Ted Crawford... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Crawford hearing he fires the defense attorney that was assigned to him and decides to represent himself. The Pro se Act is written in the
constitution that says if he pays his taxes and holds a citizenship he has the right to defend himself. "In the case People v. Joseph, the California
supreme court allows the defendant's sixth amendment right to conduct her own defense. The court has strict ruling but because of the case
Farettta v. California, the court allows the pro se because it's on independent constitutional foundations. The sixth amendment states everyone gets
a fair trial." He pleads not guilty knowing that he gave a verbal confession to detective Rob Nunnally. Mr. Crawford seemed very confident that he
could handle his own case. The judge told him you cannot enter a plea for not understanding procedures of the court and the law. The district
attorney Beacham said he could not be available because he was leaving, but Mr. Crawford insisted on Beachum staying on the case because he
liked him. To make it possible Mr. Crawford then asked the judge if his trial can be scheduled for next available date to meet Beacham's deadline. He
waived his right to a preliminary hearing so the trial would be heard as fast as possible. Both parties agreed and the case was moved to the first possible

Scottsboro Boys Case
The Scottsboro Boys case that occurred in the 1930s, generated local, national, and international interest in the treatment of African Americans in the
American south. Never had a crime produced so many trials and convictions as the Scottsboro Boys case in all of American history. The cases created
celebrities out of anonymities and wasted innocent young lives. On one fateful day in April 1931, 9 African American boys, ages 12–19, were riding a
freight train from Chattanooga to Memphis. A series of events occurred, resulting in a group of white males being forced off the train. They
immediately went to the county sheriff who then formulated a posse comitatus to search the train and arrest the African Americans. Upon arriving in
Paint Rock, Alabama the boys were surrounded and arrested for assault of the white males, however when two white females walked off of the train,
they accused the nine boys of rape. The boys were quickly whisked away to be verbally abused in front of an all–white jury. Little did the boys know
that the next six years of their lives would be wasted in isolation. This controversial circumstance of the 1930's brought many social and legal issues to
light. It showed the barbarous treatment of African Americans. While the Scottsboro Boys were seen as a threat to the Alabaman white culture, racial
tensions in 1930's Alabama affected them, due to the fact that the plaintiff were white females, there was a lack of evidence against the Scottsboro
Boys yet

Case Analysis : Crawford V. Washington
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) Criminal Case Analysis Paper
Name of the Case: Give the full name of the case with citation, such as: xxx U.S. xxx (2016) or xxx N.E.2d xxx (Ind. 2016). (5 points)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
Case History: Where did the case originate and what path did it follow to reach the Supreme Court? (10 points) The case originated in Washington state
trial court. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Michael Crawford was convicted of assault after being charged with attempted murder and
assault. Id. The case then moved to the Washington Court of Appeals where the conviction was reversed after applying a test of nine–factors to see if
Sylvia's, Michael Crawford's ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Sylvia's story was tape–recorded (Id.). This tape recording was used in court because she was barred from testifying in court through use of a marital
privilege law (Id.). The State claimed that this tape–recorded statement was admissible because the marital privilege law did not cover statements made
by a spouse out–of–court and, "... the State invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, Wash. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003)"
(Id. at 40). The defense objected to the use of this evidence in court because it violated his Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the
witnesses against him" (Id. at 40). The trial court allowed the evidence to be admitted by citing an earlier decision, in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56
(1980), that the Supreme Court's description of Sixth Amendment rights did not bar the prosecution from admitting a statement from an unavailable
witness, "... if the statement bears "adequate 'indicia of reliability.'" Id., at 66." (Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), at 40). The trial court
focused on the part of the test in Roberts that evidence must "... bear "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." [Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56
(1980), at 66]" (Id., at 40). The Washington Court of Appeals did not agree with the trial court because of the results of a test of nine–factors to
determine trustworthiness (Id., at 41). Some of the main points

The Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright
Another Supreme Court case which was very popular when it was being tried, and still is today, is the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In this case,
which was decided on March 18, 1963, a man named Clarence Gideon was denied his sixth amendment right to an attorney. Gideon was arrested in
Florida in 1961 for breaking and entering into a pool hall with the intent of committing another crime there. When he asked for an attorney to
represent him because he couldn't afford one, he was denied of his Sixth Amendment right. When asked why, he was told that by Florida State Law,
the only time an attorney is appointed to the accused is when a person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon put together a defense as best he
could, and represented himself during trial. As can be expected from a man with no law experience, he lost his case and was found guilty. He was
sentenced to five years in prison, until he filed a habeas corpus petition; meaning a petition saying he was wrongly imprisoned (pbs.org). When this
case went to the Supreme Court, Gideon argued that he was violated of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, regardless of the status of his case.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 9–0 decision, the right to an attorney should be given in all criminal prosecutions (oyez.org). This was a huge case for
the criminal justice system simply because it allowed for fair representation for everyone. There were no longer people who went to jail simply
because of the fact that they

Court Case: Gideon Vs. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright The issue in this case is should the state law provide appointment of council for defendants if they aren't able to afford it or
should they only provide appointment of council for defendants In this court case Clarence Gideon was denied a request to have an attorney who
could represent him because he couldn't afford one. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. In the
court case the judge from Florida told him that they only gave attorneys to defendants who may be charged with the death penalty. Gideon was
sentenced to five years in prison; he then filed for habeas corpus saying that his sentence was unconstitutional since he didn't have a defense attorney his
trial. The

Confrontation Clause
In the United States criminal justice system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With this concept in mind, the accused are given
many rights to a fair trial. One of those rights falls under the sixth amendment in the United States Constitution. The confrontation clause reads, "In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." West's Encyclopedia of American Law
defines the confrontation clause as, "A fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal action to come face–to–face with an adverse witness in the
court's presence so the defendant has a fair chance to object the testimony of the witness, and the opportunity to cross–examine him or her" (Lehman &
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court treats sex abuse cases, where young children are victims differently. In 1990, the case Maryland v. Craig permitted young children to testify
by the use of one–way, closed circuit televisions out of the courtroom, under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that children's
psychological well–being outweighed the accused entitlement to face–to–face confrontation (Parise, 1991, p. 1099).
In the past few years several cases have enforced a more comprehensive meaning to the confrontation clause. Such cases are Crawford v. Washington,
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, and Davis v. Washington. In 2004, the landmark case Crawford v. Washington, involved an assault where the
defendant Michael Crawford, got into an altercation involving a knife with another male over his wife. During the arrest, the police taped both Michael
and his wife statements. The prosecution used his wife's damaging statement, as she was unwilling to testify against her husband, during his trial and
Crawford was convicted (Friedman, p. 440). Subsequently, the case made it to the United States Supreme Court and they overturned the 1980 decision
in Ohio v. Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote, "Out–of–court statements were admissible only when the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant
had been able to cross–examine the witness on a previous occasion" (Supreme Court: Right to Confront Witnesses Strengthened, 2004). Under the
Crawford ruling

Essay on The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is
what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was
arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly
admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda's confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and
eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda
v. Arizona, because... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These rights are derived directly from the constitution. While it doesn't say exactly that, it is what the Justices determined it meant, which is their job
according to the constitution.
Ernesto Miranda's written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights.
Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an
accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for
his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning.
He argued that a suspect who didn't have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators.
They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn't know he didn't have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn't
voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn't voluntary he was forced to "witness" against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated
the fifth amendment.
Miranda did not have a lawyer present during his interrogation. There was no indication of whether he asked for one or not, but we can assume that he
didn't know he

The Criminal Justice System Essay
David Cole wrote, "our criminal justice system affirmatively depends on inequality" (5). Cole has substantial grounds for making this
statement. Race and class have long been issues in the criminal justice system, but does the system "affirmatively depend on inequality?"
Does the criminal justice system depend on the disparities of the people that it serves?
American justice is supposed to be blind. Despite this there have been many disparities in the justice system due to racial, social class, and economic
reasons. "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we
do..." (Cole 5). The case of Gideon v. Wainwrightcan be used ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The outcome of Gideon requires government to provide a lawyer to a defendant, "[b]ut as long as the state provides a warm body with a law
degree and a bar admission, little else matters" (Cole 64). Even though the state provides indigent defense counsel, most are "underpaid,
overworked, and given insufficient resources to conduct an adequate investigation and defense" (Cole 84). Cole states that in 1990, "[t]he
national average per capita spending on local and state indigent defense was $5.37" (84). Cole also points out other facts about the ruling in
Gideon v. Wainwright:
One of the most remarkable facts about the constitutional right declared in Gideon v. Wainwright is that it was not a constitutional right for the first
184 years of our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' But for most of our history, this right applied only to the approximately 10 percent of criminal trials that take
place in federal court, and even there is meant only that defendants who had the money to do so could hire and attorney to defend them. (65)
What this establishes is the inequalities of defense in the legal system. Those defendants that cannot provide their own council are at a disadvantage

The Sixth Amendment: Providing Justice for Everyone Essay
The 6th Amendment: Providing Justice for Everyone
Prior to the Revolutionary War, if the British accused a colonist of a crime, he would most likely receive an unfair trial and a prison sentence. When the
Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they believed that all Americans deserved rights which the British had not given them. The 6th Amendment
provides many legal rights to United States citizens that protect them from being wrongly convicted of crimes. The 6th Amendment is the most
important amendment in the Constitution of the United States. The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the
right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Smith vs. Illinois, the state of Illinois convicted Fleming Smith for the illegal sale of drugs. The evidence against Smith consisted of statements by
an undercover policeman who did not appear at the trial because the police claimed that revealing the policeman's identity would expose secretive
strategies used by the police. Smith appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that his 6th Amendment rights had been violated. Agreeing with
Smith, the Supreme Court said that no matter the circumstances, a defendant must be confronted with all witnesses testifying against him. These rights
regarding witnesses are necessary for a defendant who wishes to have evidence in his defense. The 6th Amendment also provides an accused individual
with the right to counsel, or a lawyer. While the interpretation of this right has been debated, it is now understood that in all cases where conviction
would result in imprisonment, the court must appoint a lawyer for the defense. In Gideon vs. Wainwright, the court convicted Clarence Earl Gideon of
larceny without providing him with counsel. The court said that under Florida state law, the court was only required to appoint a lawyer to the
defendant in capital cases. Gideon argued that the 6th Amendment guaranteed a lawyer to all defendants, no matter what crime had been committed.
The Supreme Court agreed with Gideon, stating that the right to counsel applied to all individuals, not just those who could afford it. The "right to

Kelli Mcdonald's Case: Forensic Analysis
WRITING SAMPLE The attached writing sample is an excerpt from a motion in limine written for my internship with the Office of the Public
Defender, in which I analyzed a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross–examine a witness. The defendant was charged with a crime predicated
on evidence alleged to be a controlled substance that was seized by law enforcement officers and submitted to the Broward Sheriff's Office Crime
Lab for testing. Kelli McDonald, a crime lab chemist, performed the forensic analysis of the alleged controlled substance, in this case. The State relied
upon the forensic analysis of the suspect controlled substance performed by the Crime Lab to prosecute this case. However, in 2012, Kelli McDonald
was the subject of an internal affairs investigation conducted by the Broward Sheriff's Office: Department of Professional Standards regarding the loss
or mishandling of evidence. The Broward Sheriff's Office: Department of Professional Standards, Division of Internal Affairs found that Kelli
McDonald violated departmental operating procedure and engaged in misconduct thereby causing cocaine evidence to go missing. This memorandum
is asking the Court to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The State is presenting Kelli McDonald against the defendant to testify to her lab report. Similar to Dodd and Melendez–Diaz, the defendant in this
case has the right to cross–examine Kelli McDonald regarding her capacity as a chemist on his case and her present capacity capacity in order to
display the possibility of impropriety. Since Kelli McDonalds's lab report and testimony belong to the core testimonial class of evidence, her testimony
directly relates to the defendant's defense because there is a break in the chain of custody when the Sheriff's department's exerted control over the
evidence could display the possibility of

Unit 4 Assignment Essay
Codie Davis
Unit 4 Assignment
CJ 227
Criminal Procedure
John Doe is an individual that left his country in an effort to make a better life. However, he does not have legal status in America and was recently
arrested for shoplifting merchandise, which was valued over $1,000. At the time of his arrest, John voluntarily began to make incriminating statements
to the arresting officers. At the police station, detectives conducted an interview of John asking him about the theft. John Doe has had no prior
arrests, is 35 years old, and most of John Doe's family still resides in his home country. Due to the amount of money involved, the crime is deemed a
felony and John was arrested and placed in the county jail in Toms River, NJ. He is... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If there was no warrant for John's arrest this hearing will also determine if there is probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh). Probable cause means that a
reasonable ground exists for belief in the facts.
The court can either choose to do a preliminary hearing or grand jury for John's first appearance.. In a preliminary hearing is conducted with no jury
and the judge is the fact finder. A grand jury hearing is where the prosecution presents the case to a group of citizens outside the presence of the
defendant and they (the grand jurors) are asked to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecution.
Some issues that the judge would have to take into consideration when setting bail for John is that he does not have legal status in this country, and
most of his family still resides in his home country. Per the eighth amendment the judge must set a reasonable and fair amount of bail.
An arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charge document in the presence of the defendant to inform him of the charges against him. In
response to an arraignment the accused is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they usually include "guilty", "not
guilty", and "nolo contendere"
REFERENCES

To Kill A Mockingbird Analysis
Justice and Prejudice Innocent until found guilty. The caliber of modern law today. We now give every United States Citizen the right to a fair a
speedy trial, to our sixth amendment rights. But imagine a time where these so called unalienable rights were non–existent, especially to one race. A
time when everyone believed in one thing, not knowing right from wrong. That's exactly what happened to Tom Robinson in the self–acclaimed novel
To Kill a Mockingbird. The novel To Kill a Mockingbird is a pinnacle of literature that elucidates the racial injustice of the 60–70s. A masterpiece by
Harper Lee, as her meanings even demonstrate prejudice and chastity today. In like manner, things in the information age, like saving net neutrality
, and the racism still evident within this very terrene today. Like Mrs. Maudie says, "It is a sin to kill a Mockingbird." And Harper Lee agrees, as
she puts in many crafts that sum towards the main theme, which is destroying innocence should stand alone. But why so? With that in mind, it's time
to uncover some of the traits that Harper Lee used to create an American classic. In parts of this book, the author uses a lot of Flashback. The largest
example of this is at the origin of the story, when Jem broke his arm, and was magnifying the pain he was dealing with. We then know at the end of
the story that a knife enters Jem's arm while being chased by Mr. Ewell, breaking it and severing some joints. This then implies that the whole story was

Case Analysis : V. Pugh
In order for a pretrial to take place, there needs to be a decision to charge. This begins with an officer bringing a case to a prosecutor, whose job is
to determine if there is enough information derived by the responding officer on behalf of the case, which could prove the suspect was involved in
the crime. Once a case is given to the prosecuting attorney, there needs to be enough probable cause to detain the suspect. The case is then given
to independent magistrates to make a quick decision on whether or not there is enough probable cause to defend the officer's determination to
make an arrest. Whether or not there is sufficient probable cause to detain a suspect is decided at the first appearance. The Gerstein is one that's
purpose is to identify the determination that the arresting officer had towards probable cause existing in order to follow through with making an
arrest. The case Gerstein v. Pugh exemplifies the reasoning for why this specific type of hearing takes place. In this particular case, a county in
Florida allowed it's prisoners to be held for a substantial amount of time before being able to be given a hearing on behalf of their offense, based
solely off of the decision of the prosecutor. This specific type of hearing requires a judicial determination of probable cause that is needed prior to an
"extent straight of liberty" after an arrest is made (AELE, 2012). The case Gerstein v. Pugh extends on the fact that, "In order to implement the fourth

The Sixth Amendment : The Right To A Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment: The Right to a Speedy trial The Sixth amendment lays out many rights one of them being the right to a speedy trial. Just
right protect the accused from an excess amount of time between arrest and trial. The United States Supreme Court has not defined "speedy" and
in its place ruled in Barker v. Wingo in 1972 that only in situations that the delay is unjustified and proved to be detrimental to the accused case can
the accused claim a violation of this right (Gaines & Miller 2017). Introduction to the 6th amendment This clause in the sixth amendment
guarantees the defendant protection against unnecessary delays between the time of arrest or indictment and their trial. This part is in place to
protect the defendant's ability to properly defend against the charges. A "speedy" trial is relative and is decided on a case by case basis because
the sixth amendment does not specify what speedy means. Each state also has its own speedy trial statutes (Gaines & Miller 2017). A "speedy"
trial is one that happens as soon as practically possible in most cases. This piece of the amendment impacts all the parts of the criminal justice
system. The amount of time that law enforcement has in order to conduct an investigation relies partly on the amount of time until the trial. Law
enforcement most of the time has to be in court during the trial of the accused and sometimes the court needs a continuance if a key law
enforcement officer is indisposed for good reason. The court system is impacted tremendously by this right. The court has to schedule and try the
accused within a reasonable amount of time. This right plays a large role in corrections as well. A lot of the time when a person is awaiting trial
they will not be let out on bail and will be held in a jail. The longer the amount of time between arrest and the trial the longer they are in jail
(Wernikoff 1993). Even if they are let out on bail they are still monitored by members of the corrections branch of criminal justice. The right to a
properly speedy trial impacts the accused, the prosecution, and society. Being in jail or out in society on bail can have a serious effect of somebody's
character and effect the person's rehabilitation

The Case Of The Trial
On November 2, 2000 Erma Stewart was arrested along with twenty six others because authorities were under the suspicion that they had been
involved with the distribution of an illegal substance. Stewart was jailed and had her bond set to $70,000. She was then appointed a public defender
to handle her case. However, Stewart claims that the attorney pressured her into pleading guilty despite her insistence that she was innocent. After
spending a month in jail with the knowledge that her children had no to look after them, due to her being a single parent, Stewart conceded and plead
guilty to the charges. She was made to pay a fine of $1,000 and was sentenced to 10 years of probation.
The first trial associated with Stewart's case opened five months after she had pleaded guilty. Immediately the evidence was seen as worthless by the
court. Within a month all cases were dismissed, except those who had pleaded guilty.
For years, Erma felt the ill effects of pleading guilty to a crime in which she insists she did not commit. Because she plead guilty to a felony, she was
ineligible for food stamps, unable to vote, evicted from her public housing unit, and could not receive money from the government for education. She
worked as a cook at a local housing project, which only payed $5.25 an hour. She had trouble finding the money for her son's asthma medication, and
was still paying the $1000 fine, probation, and court costs from the plea deal (Alexander). Because the public defender

The Case Of Missouri Vs. Seibert
In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named
Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be
held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death
of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a
mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert's and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the
police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert's Miranda rights. She
was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily
confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and
then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert. The issues the court must decide are
whether withholding Miranda Warnings to obtain a confession is considered admissible in court. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was
questioned before her

Gideon V Wainwright Pros And Cons
The Sixth Amendment is part of the United States Bill of Rights and its clauses are related to criminal prosecutions. It states that every defendant has
the right of speedy and public trial, impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to have the aid
of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney's assistance has been focused on two main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and
the right to an effective counsel. When the Constitution was adopted, courts in Britain did not appoint lawyers to defendants charged with felonies,
opposite to those who were accused of misdemeanors. This practice was not executed by the American colonies and most of the original thirteen...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wainwright is an important case when it comes to the Sixth Amendment because it resulted in a more rigorous application of the right to counsel. The
right to an attorney was no longer based on the individual case. On the other hand it is a perfect example of the controversy which can occur when it
comes to the application of this particular Amendment. The Sixth Amendment's clause on counsel assistance has also been challenged in regards to the
right to an effective performance on the count of the attorney. This concept demonstrates that the fulfillment of the right extends further than just the
mere appointment of legal defense. The case Anthony Ray Hinton which reached is prolonged conclusion in 2015 demonstrates what harm can be
caused by the inadequate performance of an attorney. Hinton was convicted for a two murders during armed robberies. The only evidence provided by
the prosecution during his trial was a ballistic expertise which matched the bullets found at the scene of the crime and the gun of the defendant's
mother. Hinton's defense attorney failed to provide the funding that was needed for expert witnesses which would have been able to rebut the
prosecutions expertise. Anthony Ray Hinton was declared guilty and sentenced to

Essay on The Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that
these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The
accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining
witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment. The
Sixth Amendment was written by George Mason, who was a mentor of George Washington. It was written just a month before the Declaration of...
However, Supreme Court has never set any particular time limit which must be applied. In addition, the prosecution cannot delay too much the
trial for its own advantage, but the trial can be delayed to secure the presence of the witness. If it is found that a defendant's right to a speedy trial
is violated, then the indictment is cancelled and conviction is subverted. The reversal of criminal case on the issue of speedy trial results in no
further prosecution for the alleged offense. The reason for this right was the fact that with the passage of time the witnesses can be lost because of
death, blurring of memory and other factors. However, there are also some other reasons: person in jail must be supported at considerable expense
and, sometimes, even family members must be assisted as well. The guarantee of the speedy trial is one of the fundamental liberties embodied in
the Bill of Rights. The right has some limitations: it is activated only when the criminal prosecution has begun and applies only to those people who
have been accused during the prosecution. There are only two cases known so far in which the Court held that the speedy trial right has been
violated: Smith v. Hooey (1969) and Dickey v. Florida (1970). In these cases the States preferred criminal charges against people who were already
confined in prisons of other jurisdictions as a

Influential Supreme Court Case: Gideon vs. Wainwright Essay
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For
example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro–life/pro–choice debates. Another important case was
Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those
two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs.
Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced
detectives and... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
His mother and step–father would constantly argue over various things with Clarence usually being the cause. When he was 14 years old he ran
away from home. He became a hobo living on the streets and went to California, then eventually back to Missouri to live with his brother. Over the
next 20 years he was sent to jail quite often during his life as a poor man for things such as robbery and was also sentenced to some years in prison.
Later in his life he was involved several failed marriages and eventually went to Panama City in an attempt to make money by working as an
electrician and gambling for additional money. He saved up some money and began living at a Hotel there, which was across the street from the
Bay Harbor Bar and pool room. On June 3, 1961 Clarence was arrested for stealing about five dollars, some beers, and sodas from the jukebox and
cigarette machine at the Hotel's pool room. Henry Cook, who lived close by told police he had seen Gideon come out of it with a bottle of wine
(and his pockets full of coins) and leave in a taxicab. He was found in a bar with some $25 in change; money he said he earned gambling. Despite
this he was charged with breaking and entering in an attempt to commit larceny. Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer so he asked if the Florida
Circuit judge, Judge Robert McCrary, Jr., would appoint one for him because he pointed out that the sixth amendment guarantees everyone a right

Plea Bargaining : An Effective Tool
Plea–bargaining is one of the most controversial aspects of the American legal process. While some individuals regard plea–bargaining as an effective
tool used to ensure justice, others consider it fundamentally unconstitutional. Plea–bargaining is a process in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty
to a charge in exchange for either a reduced sentence or a lesser charge. The process is extremely private and judges typically have very little influence
over the negotiation. Most frequently, the prosecutor negotiates the plea with the defendant who maintains the right to effective legal counsel. Once an
agreement is reached, the prosecutor presents the decision to a judge who has the final say on all sentencing matters. To date, the Department of
Justice estimates that approximately 97% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea–bargaining as opposed to trial by jury. While plea–bargaining offers
multiple benefits to the legal process and the general public, it is a system that is in need of critical reform. Plea bargains frequently result in court
decisions that are both unjust and unconstitutional. However, implementing federal requirements that limit prosecutorial power and protect the
defendant's Sixth Amendment rights can significantly reduce these issues.
Before discussing the current state of plea–bargaining in the United States, it is necessary to first understand its history and subsequent expansion since
1970. Plea–bargaining has a well–establish history in the

Importance Of The Sixth Amendment
In 1787 the United States' constitution was written, two years later the Bill of Rights was added. The Bill of Rights consists of ten amendments
which were designed based on the American ideals to ensure that the federal government is not too powerful, and that it would protect the rights of
the people or of the state. One of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the sixth amendment, which gives the people the right to
enjoy a speedy trial when accused, and it allows the accused person to know the cause of the accusation and who his accuser is. It clearly represents
some of the American ideals such as: democracy, opportunity, and equality. The sixth amendment provides more requirements for a fair trial in
criminal cases. First, the accused person has the right to enjoy a speedy trial, but that does not mean that the trial will be done within two days, but
rather means that, "The country or state cannot make the person sit in jail for a very long time, for example 5 years, while they wait for their trial.
This would be very unfair to anyone who is not guilty."; that was mentioned in the website Laws.com. This means that a person cannot wait in jail for
committing a crime the rest of his life before proven guilty, that would go against his right of pursuing happiness. The sixth amendment also permits
the accused person to know the cause of the accusation and know his accuser, and that leads to the second ideal which is an opportunity or a chance to

History and Development of the Sixth Amendment Essay
Muthu S. Weerasinghe Constitutional Law LS 305– 01 Unit 7 Essay The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights contains seven clauses that protect the
rights of the accused. The amendment assures the accused that "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... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). In this case eight, young black men were convicted and sentenced to death in a racially tense Alabama, where the trial
was carried out expediently, while denying the right to counsel for the defendants. Once the case was heard by the Supreme Court, Justice
Sutherland stated that "the Court, always requires the observance of certain fundamental personal rights associated with a hearing, and ''the right to
the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character.'' ("Assistance of counsel," 2004) Justice Sutherland included that ''The right to be heard would
be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and
sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crimes, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good
or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon
incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his
defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he
be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his

Crawford V Essay
Legal Memorandum
TO: Judge Mack
FROM: Legal Clerk– Paloma Garcia
RE: Crawford v. Washington
DATE: November 2, 2014
Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia's
tape–recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though Crawford had no opportunity for cross–examination. The State sought to
introduce a recorded statement that petitioner's wife Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence that the stabbing was not in self–defense.
Sylvia did not testify at trial because of Washington's marital privilege. The tape was played at trial, but she did not testify, testimonial statements are at
issue, the only indicium of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Did Kenny do anything to fight back from this assault?
"A. (pausing) I know he reached into his pocket . . . or somethin' . . . I don't know what.
"Q. After he was stabbed?
"A. He saw Michael coming up. He lifted his hand . . . his chest open, he might [have] went to go strike his hand out or something and then (inaudible).
"Q. Okay, you, you gotta speak up.
"A. Okay, he lifted his hand over his head maybe to strike Michael's hand down or something and then he put his hands in his . . . put his right
hand in his right pocket . . . took a step back . . . Michael proceeded to stab him . . . then his hands were like . . . how do you explain this . . . open
arms . . . with his hands open and he fell down . . . and we ran (describing subject holding hands open, palms toward assailant).
"Q. Okay, when he's standing there with his open hands, you're talking about Kenny, correct?
"A. Yeah, after, after the fact, yes.
"Q. Did you see anything in his hands at that point?
[541 U.S. 40]
"A. (pausing) um um (no)." (Citation– http://www.leagle.com/decision/2004577541US36_1575)
Analysis:
Cross–examination is critical during litigation. Many cases have to be proven based on solely witness testimony because of the lack of physical

evidence. Therefore, the responsibility of a witness to tell the truth relies on methods

The Mirand Case Versus the State of Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case because now almost everybody knows about this case because of the Miranda Rights that were a direct
result of this case, and the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Courts ruling that it was against Miranda's rights, then because of this decision they
made the Miranda Rights. The Supreme Court was correct in the ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, which they ruled in favor of Ernesto Miranda because
his fifth and sixth amendment rights were violated. They were violated because he was not told his rights when he was arrested, and they did not
give him the right to a lawyer. (Miranda v. Arizona www.infoplease.com) The majority opinion in this case was for Miranda, the majority opinion was
wrote by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Majority said that Miranda's confession could not be used in court because the police had not informed
Miranda of his rights to a attorney, and against self–incrimination, which are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the fifth, and sixth
amendments to the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment says that suspects of crimes have to be informed of their rights during an arrest
including the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment says that people have to be informed of right to a fair hearing after the arrest. (Miranda v.
Arizona www.kid.laws.com) The majority opinion based their decision on that when Miranda was arrested he was not informed of his rights. One of
Miranda's rights that

My Cousin Vinny : Truth, Justice And The Gambini Way
My Cousin Vinny: Truth, Justice and The Gambini Way is a movie film constructed about two men, Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstien in which are
erroneously mistaken to be murderers by the Beechum County Sheriff's Department. Bill Gambini and Stan Rothernstien become detained on the
charges of murder by Beechum County Sherriff's Department, the division possessed their firearms during the time of the arrest, although the two men
initially thought they were being arrested for a purloined can of tuna. Furthermore, the crime transpired at a convenience store in which Jimmy Willis,
the store clerk, found to be assassinated by a .357 magnum pistol. In conclusion, the witnesses in the case communicated seeing a faded green Buick
Skylar with a white convertible top, decamping the scene of the crime in which Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstien were operating at the time of the
murder. Bill Gambini's cousin relative, Vinny, traverses to accommodate his cousin in a court of law. Does Vinny accommodate well enough to liberate
his cousin and friend? I would like to commence Vinny's qualifications of his initial career as an attorney. Vinny is inexperienced and throughout the
film is not conversant with current laws, nor regulations to support his clients. The simultaneous representation of the two clients is a problem due to
the conflict of interests among clients, in addition, Vinny is sundry in being arrested and jailed for contempt of court– in which no satisfactory attorney

Jurisdictional Issues within the Criminal Justice System...
Within the United States' Criminal Justice System, problems pertaining to jurisdiction issues are quite common due several reasons. The United States
v. Thomas J. L Smiley case and the United States v. Jared Lee Loughner case both had jurisdiction issues. Smiley and several other men obtained
permission through a license from Mexico to search for treasure on an expedition; the treasure belonged to the steamer Golden Gate, which belonged to
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company located within the United States. Ultimately, federal charges were brought upon him from the United States for
violating a statue regarding plundering a sunken and/or abandoned ship. In contrast, Loughner had federal charges brought upon him by the United
States due to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This presents a huge problem for attorneys and legal team of Loughner, as they must ensure he receive a fair and unbiased trial which is one of his
fundamental rights as an American citizen. Without receiving an unbiased judge, the fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights within theUnited States
Constitution would be violated. The Fifth Amendment states the following:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Fifth)
Due process of law refers to the all citizens of the United States must receive fair treatment from the Criminal Justice system; thus, jurisdiction becomes
an enormous issue within the case as the location of the trial and the judge and jury as well, must be unbiased

Right to Counsel
Right to Counsel Lionel James CJA/364 December12, 2011 CHARLES MC CLELLAND Right to Counsel Introduction: The primary source of the
right to counsel is the Sixth Amendment. It states in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for
defence. In this article, the development of the right to council will be discussed as well as when the right to council attaches to criminal procedures.
The right to self– representation and the role of attorneys as it applies to right to council will be discussed as well. The development of the right to
counsel: The Supreme Court in 1932 began to define the right to counsel and years later it applied it to the Sixth Amendment right to... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and
in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital
cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).In Griffin
v.Illinois (1956) the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause indigent defendants are entitled to a trial transcript in
order to facilitate appeals. Justice Black wrote: There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he
has. Justice Black's opinion was probably designed to undermine the Betts special circumstances rule, replacing it with a flat requirement that the state
had to provide counsel to indigents.(Zalman,2008).The Supreme Court in Argersinger v.Hamlin (1972) found no constitutional basis for distinguishing
between a misdemeanor and a felony for purposes of assigned counsel for indigents. It stated that counsel was required by the Sixth Amendment in
misdemeanor cases where a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment.(Zalman,2008). The Right to Counsel Attach:

The Issue of Pretrial Publicity Essay
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising
their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy –– newspapers and television
stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high
profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the
defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Pretrial publicity has been address by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin,
was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin
argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors
who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began. Despite these admissions, the trial judge had accepted as conclusive the
jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the
trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous (Bruschke & Loges, 2004). This court case set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity
has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors
are biased. Because of the bias of the jury members, the defendant is not given a trial of an impartial jury, a Sixth Amendment right. Media coverage
should still be allowed to report information regarding the trial, but only after it has begun. In this way, jury members will not be exposed to pretrial
publicity that biases their opinion of the defendant.

Davis V. Washington ( 2006.
Courts handle some pretty complex cases on a daily basis and rely on their previous knowledge of cases and on previous cases themselves to help
them decide cases. This is a practice that goes on across the land. Issues such as hearsay, best evidence, mental capacity, and many others come into
play while the judge is presiding over the case. Attorney's need to monitor these things as well, and need to object to certain things within the
allotted time frames. There needs to be set standards that are followed, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), State Rules of Evidence, and any
common law practices are out there to assist and direct proceedings on the do's and do not's of the trial process. These rules state what may be allowed
and what... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When the police arrived, they were able to observe her shaken state, with fresh injuries on her forearm and her face. They also observed the frantic
state she was in while she was trying to gather belongings and her children so they could leave. The State charged Davis with a felony violation. The
State's only witnesses were the two police officers who responded to the 911 call. Both officers testified that McCottry exhibited injuries that appeared
to be recent, but neither officer could testify as to the cause of the injuries. McCottry presumably could have testified as to whether Davis was her
assailant, but she did not appear. Over Davis's objection, based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the trial court admitted the
recording of her exchange with the 911 operator, and the jury convicted him (Davis v. Washington, 2012). Davis appealed to the Washington Court of
Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of Washington. It is here that we will focus time on how the decisions were made affirming Davis' conviction.
Davis appealed based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The judge at this time would need to look at the Sixth Amendment and
base the decision off of that information. The Sixth Amendment states: 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

The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
For centuries, individuals that were apprehended by the police did not know that they had rights when being arrested. Past cases like Miranda v.
Arizona helped shaped policies on the debates on basic human rights when being arrested. A police officer must have substantial reason to arrest you
and read you your Miranda Rights. Specific actions, like traffic stops or a law enforcement official marching up to you and inquiring you questions are
not defined as police custody. If you feel as though something you say will harm your case more than help you, then just remain silent. Once law
enforcement authorities begin inquiring questions that may suggest entanglement in a crime an investigation has initiated (Howard & Rich, (2006).
In the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Miranda had been identified by several other women, one stating that Miranda had robbed her at knife point. The police informed Miranda that he had
been identified by the women. Miranda was taken into custody and interrogated by the police for two hours prior to confessing to the crimes. Miranda
made a statement in writing that he was making the confession voluntarily and with complete awareness of his constitutional powers."
At the same time of the interrogation, law enforcement authorities did not inform Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection opposing
self–incrimination of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession
as documentation in opposition to Miranda, who was convicted and punished to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda 's attorney petition the Arizona
Supreme Court, which sustained the conviction. Then he petitioned to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it along with four
similar cases. In taking the case, the court had to figure out the role law enforcement authorities have in defending the rights of the indicted, protected
by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." Although officers initiated that Miranda was not aware of his constitutional powers to have an attorney present
and that no attorney was present, Miranda 's confession was introduced into evidence. This case recommended that individuals

Escobedo V. Illinois Case Study
Escobedo v. Illinois Monsees,
Escobedo v. Illinois: Right to seek counsel
Mark Monsees
Liberty High School
AP – Government
3A/B
The right to consult a lawyer when being questioned by the police is a very important right as it could potentially save an individual from being
convicted for whatever he or she has been accused of. This case was centered on Danny Escobedo who was taken into custody by the Chicago police
department on January 20th, 1964, for the shooting of his brother–in–law. During Escobedo?s interrogation he continuously asked to consult with his
lawyer. The authorities in charge of Escobedos interrogation refused to provide a lawyer for Escobedo, which ultimately ended up with him confessing
to the murder of his brother in law. Being forced into confessing to the murder of his brother in law drove Escobedo to take his case to the supreme
court under the premise that his sixth amendment right of right to counsel, which didn?t apply constitutional to felony offences until the 1963 supreme
court case Gideon v. Wainwright. (Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155) The
Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives everyone the right to counsel, which essentially means that the accused party has the right to consult
a lawyer during interrogation. This idea was used as the main argument for Escobedo?s court case along with the Supreme Court case Gideon v.
Wainwright 1963. This court case center around Clarence Earl Gideon who was charged with a felony after... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Illinois." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2015 Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
"Sixth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2015 Web. 07 Dec. 2015. "Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez.org.
IIT Chicago–Kent College of Law, 2015 Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
"The Fourth Amendment." (2015): n. Www.gpo.gov. 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.ec.

The Role Of Dna Analyst On The Rights Of The Defendant
The goals of science are to make sure that the goods and services they provide are of value to the community, enhance knowledge, discredit false
information or beliefs, and most importantly to keep a record through documentation so that others can benefit from the knowledge obtained as well (1).
The role of the DNA analyst is also, in part, to protect the rights of the defendant. The DNA analyst contributes to the trial process in that their job is
to analyze evidence, according to set guidelines and procedures can sway jurors or a judge. The results from the analyst's analysis can be entered into
the court in compliance with the defendant's right to view the evidence, a process called discovery. When they testify, they are in compliance with the
defendant's right to confront their accusers. The right to a fair trial conducted in a competent manner, right to be present at trial, right to an impartial jury
, and right to be heard in one's own defense is a part of the defendant's right to due process.
Discovery is as defined in Butler 2012 is the legal process whereby information and materials relating to the prosecution of a defendant in an upcoming
trial are shared between the prosecution team, for instance, law enforcement, crime laboratory, prosecuting attorney, and the defense counsel (1). The
guidelines of discovery are outlined by the laws of the federal and state governments. The prosecution must share every element of their case against the
defendant with the

The Fifth Amendment Of The United States
The Sixth Amendment of the United States states "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 (CRS Annotated Constitution, n.d.)." The Sixth Amendment offers seven
rights to everyone; (1) a speedy trial; (2) a public trial; (3) an unbiased jury; (4) told the charges against him/her; (5) able to confront those against
him/her; (6) able to provide a witness in his/her favor; (7) right to lawful guidance. The Sixth Amendment is extremely important because it protects
the rights of those being accused with criminal charges. It ensures that the process of conviction is done fairly and no one is deprived of their rights
and unfairly charged. An individual's right to a speedy trail is only activated when they have been officially charged. The initial creation of the
amendment was to stop the individual from rotting away in jail for an extended period of time before their trial. This has many positive aspects to it,
one being it reduces the amount of interference in the defendants normal every day life. With a speedy trial, if proven innocent, the

Lowering the Voting Age to 18
Many people opposed the change of voting age, but others believed that it should be lowered. People who think that the voting age should stay the
same usually are the conservative people who want to keep the old customs as they are. People who are conservative are usually cautious about
changes, and usually want to stay put without improvement. The people who want changes are usually more liberal. These people leave place for
improvements, but sometimes vote for the change of things that are not supposed to be changed. The battle over the voting age was fought much like
any other argument about laws. It was just one of many full out battles of conservatives versus liberals. For many years in the past, people have died ...
When they vote, they are choosing a leader for the nation which controls certain portions of economy. For example, the president controls what to
spend, where to spend, and when to spend, making him in charge of most of the federal spending, as reflected in a giant national debt of 17 trillion
that politicians and presidents are partially responsible for. These spendings causes the president to either raise or lower the federal tax amount,
making taxes bigger or smaller. Lowering the voting age may change which politicians get elected, which in turn impact economical factors such as in
national debt, federal spending, or in taxing amounts. We tend to vote for the politician that represents us. So did these new voters. The lowering of
voting age made politicians consider about the youth population more, and the more consideration from politicians, the better problems could be
solved. When these new voters received their naturally deserved rights,

The Role Of Private Prisons During The United States

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Maria Parks

More from Maria Parks (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Role Of Private Prisons During The United States