Title: Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162,170-173,122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002)
Facts: Mr. Walter Mickens Jr. brought an appeal, habeas petition, after being sentenced to death for premeditated murder, during or following the act of sodomy of Timothy Hall. Mr. Mickens later had learned that his appointed attorney had represented the victim at a prior date and stated this course of action violated his sixth amendment and was a conflict of interest on his attorney’s part. His lead attorney, Mr. Brian Saunders, never at any point of his representation of Mr. Mickens, disclosed he had represented the victim or let the District Judge know when he was appointed to Mr. Mickens that he had in the past represented Mr. Hall, victim, in juvenile
…show more content…
court. Mr. Mickens brought his appeal and the appellate court found he had not demonstrated adverse impact after the initial Court of Appeals rejected his argument. The conflict of interest by his attorney, did not mandated automatic reversal of his conviction or relieved him of the burden of showing that a conflict of interest affected his representation in a negative way. The court of appeals said that he had to show “both an actual conflict of interest and an adverse effect even if the trial court failed to inquire into a potential conflict about which it reasonable should have known.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446. U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). The United States Supreme Court granted stay of execution and granted certiorari. Issue: Whether or not the conflict of interest affected Mr. Mickens’ representation, negatively, in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation when the trial courts failed to inquire into a potential conflict of interest, which they knew or should have known about, in order to reverse the decision of the death penalty? Rule: “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.” U.S. CONST. amend.VI. Decision: The court affirmed (5-4 Decision) that in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation, it is concrete upon the defendant to prove that he has been prejudiced by his attorneys’ representation and that the trial courts failure to find out the conflict of interest before the trial did not relieve the defendant to show this and thus did not overturn the original ruling of guilty or his sentencing of the death penalty. Reasoning/Analysis: The sixth amendment says that a criminal has the right to “Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. We do this so that the accused person has the opportunity to a fair trial like that was described in United States v. Chronic. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S 648.658.104 S.Ct. 2039. 80 L.Ed2d 657 (1984). In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 685-686, 104 S.Ct 2052, 80L.Ed.2d. 674 (1984) the court addressed the issue of the fact that if the counsel’s representation is not effective in preserving fairness then it is not meeting the constitutional right. It also goes into great detail about how if the issue that is causing the representation to be non-effective has no real effect on the trial’s outcome then it is not considered to be a constitutional violation at in that in order to prove that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment is being violated then they must prove or show that “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694, 104 S.C t . 2052. In Cyler v.
Sullivan, 446. U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), an attorney represented three clients that had been accused of murder, but were tried separately and no one objected to this representation. In 1978, in the Holloway v. Arkansas, a case where an attorney represented three different codefendants, the Supreme Court ruled that because of potential conflicts of interest in representing the three clients when considering confidential information, that the risk of conflict was too high, and thus they needed separate attorneys and their verdicts were reversed. This has become commonly known as the Holloway Rule. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978). The Holloway rule had been denied in this case and it was said that the conflict of interest had to negatively impact the defendant, and the defendant had to prove it using the burden of proof. In the Sullivan case it was found that no special circumstances had required the court to inquire more about the attorney representing the three clients. “a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance.” 446 U.S., at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708 There was no immediate conflict that existed when the attorney represented the three gentlemen in their own cases, so it was ruled. Mr. Saunders once approached with the situation was recorded saying he did not think there was a conflict of interest because the client was no longer alive, and his juvenile record held no significance to this trial and thus it did not affect his representation of Mr. Mickens. This Supreme Court agreed in this case that Mr. Mickens could not prove with a burden of proof that Mr. Saunders past representation of Mr. Hall in the past affect his representation of Mr. Mickens, and thus the original judgment was upheld and and quoted saying, “defects in assistance [of counsel] that have no probable effect upon the trial’s
outcome do not establish a constitutional violation.” Mickens, 535 U.S at 166, 122 S.Ct 1237. Decision/Conclusion: No, the conflict of interest did not affected Mr. Mickens representation, negatively, in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation when the trial courts failed to inquire into a potential conflict of interest, which they knew or should have known about, thus no sentencing was overturned, but held.
The amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 introduced in s. 185(1A) and s. 11A requiring reasonable steps to be taken to ensure the person who executed the instrument as mortgagor is identical with the person who is, or who is about to become, the registered proprietor of the
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The case of Ford V. Wainwright is a Supreme court case of the United Stated argued in 1986. Alvin Bernard Ford is the plaintiff in this case, In 1974 he was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. In 1982 Ford began to show signs of a serious mental disorder. The Governor of Florida then appointed a panel of three psychiatrist to determine if Ford was component to understand the nature of the death penalty and the crime he had committed. All three psychiatrist disagreed on his exact diagnosis but agreed that he was sane and knew the nature of the death penalty. Ford’s attorney unsuccessfully sought a hearing in the state court for determination of his competency and then filed a hebeas corpus petition, which is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court especially for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty. The Florida courts denied his petition and signed a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford then sued Louie L. Wainwright, the defendant, who at the time of the case was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Correction.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary for our understanding”(Lewis 35). It is reasonable to assume that the Court would not spend an exorbitant amount of time going through mounds of paupers’ petitions trying to find a case that seemed presentable. Statistically, about thirteen percent of petitions for certiorari on the regular docket are paupers’ petitions. In addition, only three percent of paupers’ petitions end up being granted. Nevertheless, Gideon’s case was treated just as equally as any other in forma pauperis case. Gideon’s handwritten documents were held for a month until Florida authorities replied to petition. A month passed by and Gideon’s petition was mailed to the office of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1962. A conference was held in June to discuss whether or not Gideon’s petition should be granted. Gideon’s case was granted three days after the conference and from that day forward Gideon’s fight for justice would ensue. In the eyes of Gideon, an attorney was a fundamental right of due process. However, his biggest ch...
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” .
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if 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 if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
During the course of a two day evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that Harvey’s change of beneficiary was the result of “undue influence and duress” by Carl upon Harvey.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook