In partnership with Fehr+Peers, we worked in the United Arab Emirates to develop pedestrian safety changes to help a rapidly growing country deal with a constant issue of pedestrian injuries and fatalities
In partnership with Fehr+Peers, we worked in the United Arab Emirates to develop pedestrian safety changes to help a rapidly growing country deal with a constant issue of pedestrian injuries and fatalities
The Evolution of An Absolute Right: Assignment of Counsel in Criminal Casesjmuhlnic
An analysis of the judiciary decisions leading to the absolute right to counsel for criminal defendants. Evaluates the cases of Powell v. Alabama, Betts v. Brady, and Gideon v. Wainwright in light of the social periods in which they were litigated.
Case Summaries for Criminal Procedure, 6eJohn Scheb and John M. .docxtidwellveronique
Case Summaries for Criminal Procedure, 6e
John Scheb and John M. Scheb IIChapter 1
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). Here the Supreme Court made the right of trial by jury applicable to defendants in state criminal cases. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Douglas, Justice Black expressed his satisfaction with what the Court had done under the mantle of selective incorporation: “I believe as strongly as ever that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. I have been willing to support the selective incorporation doctrine, however, as an alternative, although perhaps less historically supportable than complete incorporation. ... [T]he selective incorporation process has the virtue of having already worked to make most of the Bill of Rights protections applicable to the States.”
Boykin v. Alabama (1969). Boykin pled guilty to five counts of common law robbery; however, at this time Alabama law provided for a jury to determine a defendant’s sentence. At the sentencing phase, the trial judge asked Boykin no questions regarding the voluntariness of his plea agreement nor did Boykin address the court. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony; however, Boykin’s attorney failed to present any mitigating evidence on behalf of Mr. Boykin including the fact that there was no indication the defendant had a prior criminal history. The jury returned a death sentence. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Douglas, held “several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment…. Second, is the right to trial by jury. Third, is the right to confront one’s accusers. We cannot presume a waiver of these important federal rights from a silent record.” The Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s sentence because there was no indication in the court record that his plea was made “voluntary and understandingly.”
Chapter 2
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Clarence Earl Gideon, a 51 year-old indigent “drifter” who had been in and out of jails all his adult life, was charged with felonious breaking and entering. At trial, he requested that the court appoint an attorney to represent him. The court refused, citing the Florida law that required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants only in capital cases. While serving his sentence in the Florida State Prison, Gideon unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in the Florida Supreme Court on a writ of habeas corpus. He then obtained review by the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed Gideon’s conviction. Writing for the Court, Hugo Black opined that “[t]he right of one charged with a crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” Gideon v. Wainwright over ...
3. Court Members
Chief Justice: Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley F.
Reed, Felix Frankfuiter, William O. Douglas,
Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B.
Rutle, and Harold H. Burton
4. What cause the case?
Gertrude Martin revealed that she had a
illegal abortion, done by Dr. Julius A. Wolf, in
a back-alley abortion clinic. Police entered
Wolf’s office and illegally seized a list of
women without a warrant. He was then found
guilty and took the trial to the Supreme Court
for the police using illegally obtained
evidence.
5. Main Decision
One of the main questions about this case
was whether state had to follow the rules
about illegal search and seizures set forth by
the fourth and fourteenth amendments.
6. Writing dissent
Writing dissenting opinions (an opinion in a
legal case written by one or more judges
expressing disagreement with the majority
opinion of the court which rise to its
judgment) (A dissenting opinion does not
create a binding precedent nor does it
become part of case law) were Stanley
Reed, Robert H. Jackson, and Harold Hiltz
Burton, Hugo Black wrote his own.
7. When did this happen?
Itwas argued October 19, 1948.
The outcome was decided June 27, 1949.
Mapp V. Ohio over ruled the case 12 years
later(1961).
8. What was the outcome?
Thecourt decided to take Colorado’s side.
The court said that the 14th amendment says
they could do it, now. Colorado won the case
6-3 over Wolf.
9. Opinions
Savannah- I think that under proper warranting, they should be
able to search. I do believe that the police could have came
about the problem different.
Zack- The police shouldn’t have entered without a written
warrant, I believe that since they ransacked his property that
they should pay in full for damages caused by police brutality. I
believed that Wolf should have won the case.
Dylan- I believe that it was unfair to Wolf that he was tried and
lost because of evidence that according to our constitution was
illegally obtained. Wolf for the WIN!!!!!!
