Case (previous): The case Gideon V Wainwright was a case in which Clarence Earl Gideon was charged of break in, with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Eye Witness Henry Crook was at the pool house at the time the break in occurred. He testified saying the he say Gideon walk into the pool house heard shattering noises and left, in his hand held a bottle of wine, and he could hear loads of coins in his pockets. He watched Gideon wait for a taxi and leave. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison.
Travel from the Supreme Court: Gideon in prison started reading about law and decided his case was unfair since he had asked the judge to give him council to represent him. He decided to write a petition to the Supreme Court saying how the sixth amendment grants him the right to council and how the case was unfair since he had to represent himself. The Justices decided to hear the case and ended up trying the case in court.
Constitutional issue: On the day of his trial Gideon showed up without a lawyer, the judge asked why he didn’t have
…show more content…
one and Gideon explained how he didn’t have enough money to hire one and asked to be given council to represent him. The judge refused saying only people who have committed a capital criminal action are entitled to a lawyer. He then said that the sixth amendment entitled him council to represent him. Issue: Does the sixth amendment grant the right to council even if there aren’t any special circumstances. Key Players: Clarence Earl Gideon: Clarence Earl Gideon is a key player because he was the man on trial and the man who sent the petition in to the Supreme Court with a well written description and explanation to why he was entitled to council.
Abe Fortress: Gideon’s lawyer after he was re tried for the same crime and mad the jury find Gideon not guilty. The justices of the Supreme Court: Agreed to hear the case and orally debate it, and voted unanimously with Gideon’s favor. Ira Strickland: The owner of the pool house and testifier. Louie L. Wainwright: The lawyer who represented the state of Florida. Henry Cook: Was a man who was the supreme witness and was found where the break in was. He said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon going into the pool house and coming out with alcohol and money in his pockets. Robert McCrary, Jr: Was the judge in the first case who refused council to Clarence Earl Gideon, And the Judge in the second
case. Opposing viewpoints Gideon’s side. The sixth amendment grants the right to council, and he didn’t receive any in his case. Since Gideon had not received council the case was an unfair trial. Florida side: The sixth amendment doesn’t grant the right to council to everyone. It does grant the right to council to people who have special circumstances or are facing a capital sentence. Gideon could have, and did easily represent himself since he fell under none of the categories stated above. Outcome: The outcome of the case Gideon V. Wainwright was a unanimous decision of 9, 0 all for Gideon’s side. They wrote that anybody who can’t financially afford council will have one given to him by the city/state one resigns in. Though he won the case he still was re trialed on the same case he had lost and sentenced to prison from this time, with a lawyer, the jury found Gideon not guilty. Relevance: The case Gideon v Wainwright set a way for people who are financially unstable to be represented. The case benefits society by making sure people can always have a fair/equal trial.
Mr. Bradford was sentenced to two and a half years in state prison for assault and filed a lawsuit from Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, implying that he would not have received a state prison sentence if not for the warrantless search of his residence. He was released from prison under parole supervision in February 2014. Bradford has not contacted the court about his lawsuit since November 2014. In July, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks recommended that the action be dismissed because Mr. Bradford, who acted as his own attorney, had not advised the court of his change of address or provided any reason why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge David N. Hurd dismissed the case. Bradford claimed that he was forced into pleading guilty in County Court when a judge advised him of the potential years of incarceration he would face in the event he was convicted of assault following trial. He also claimed that the County Court sentenced him without the benefit of a presentence report. The appellate court rejected his
...his seemingly routine case of fornication and premarital pregnancy proved to be significant for early American legal history. The unfolding of this story and the legal changes that it brought about makes evident that by the end of the seventeenth century, The Eastern Shore had shaped a distinct legal culture. The characters involved in each case also revealed the extent the powerful players were able to shape the law to their own self-interests. The goal of the powers to be was to protect property interests, protect personal reputation and liberty, and to maintain social order.
In James S. Hirsch’s book about Rubin "Hurricane" Cater, Hurricane, the author describes how Carter was wrongfully imprisoned and how he managed to become free. Hirsch tells about the nearly impossible battle for Carter and his friend John Artis for freedom and justice. Both, Carter and Artis, were convicted of a triple homicide, and both were innocent.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
The movie starts off with Gideon being charged with petty theft and going to court. Gideon is considered a have-not; he is extremely poor and barely literate. When he gets to court, he asks the judge to appoint him a lawyer because he cannot afford one. The judge denies this, saying that in Florida the only time the court can appoint council is if the defendant had committed a capitol offense. Because of this, Gideon is unable to provide a solid defense and is declared guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Being a have-not, the judge’s decision to not appoint Gideon a lawyer wasn’t even
(6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule upon the issue of defendant’s right to receive a transcript.
With such a minor sentence, Darrow is said to be the person who actually won the trial. In the play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, the character, Henry Drummond, parallels his real-life counterpart, Clarence Darrow, through
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.
Early in his career, Drummond defended two teenage child murderers and helped them escape their consequences. Due to this act, he entered Dayton surrounded by strong feelings of hatred. After his scientists were refused a spot on the stand, Drummond was enraged. Henry decided to put Matthew Harrison Brady on the stand to question him. “I call to the stand one of the world’s foremost experts on the Bible and its teachings – Matthew Harrison Brady” he insisted (Lawrence and Lee 82). After Cate’s verdict was announced, Drummond appealed it, causing it to be sent to a higher court. All these actions resemble the same activities of Clarence Darrow during the Scopes Trial. Clarence Darrow was frowned upon because of his success while taking on the teenage murderer’s situation. When he put William Jennings Bryan on stand, the crowd was shocked by his unorthodox action, but he knew exactly what he was doing. “On the seventh day of the trial, on a platform outside the Dayton, Tennessee courthouse, he called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as an expert on the Bible” (“People & Events” 1). His plan worked, allowing him to reduce the sentence to a reasonable consequence, but he was still unhappy about the verdict. He requested that the case be taken to a higher court in hopes of reversing the outcome. All in all, Henry’s actions are a near mirror image of Clarence’s.
In Gideon's Trumpet Anthony Lewis documents Clarence Earl Gideon's struggle for a lawyer, during an era where it was not necessary in the due process to appoint an attorney to those convicted.
At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.
the court, and for saying “I say-I say – God is dead” (p.115). The day
...he amount of land he held, so he accused him as too get rid of him so the land would be easier to obtain but it ends up that Giles becomes accused also. Ann Putnam also tends to stir up quite a bit of conflict and jealously as her husband has. ( finish this evidence Overview:
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
See Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon; and Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al. v. State of Florida