My Day in Municipal Court.

A few days ago, I went to court for my first (and hopefuly my last), speeding ticket. I quickly found myself in the midst of a mob of people all of whom were guilty of some small charge, or so I thought. I had recieved a ticket for going 46… in a 25, ouch! I thought I had it bad until the judge started hearing the cases of the criminals who were surronding me. I was surrounded by people charged with D.U.I., possesion of Marajuana, and illeageal firearms. It amazed me, there were so many people crammed in to the tiny court room, that there was no room left for privacy. The cases were discused openly on the floor, I heard the details of sevral cases, and at sevral points throughout the course of my waiting, I couldn’t help but to laugh at the stupidity of my fellow man.                                                                                                       

On guy was driving home drunk, he spied a roadblock up ahead and realized that if he went through, he would surely loose his licence. He came up with the amazing plan to make a u-turn and eveade the trap. In his drunkenness however, he went into the ditch, took out a mailbox and got stuck. Now instead of being charged solely with D.U.I., he is being charged with1: D.U.I. 2: Attempting to evade Police and 3:Destruction of private property.                                                                                                                    

On the flip side, there was a lucky S.O.B. who was pulled over for D.U.I., he had admitted to smoking Marijuana shortly before attempting to drive home. But luckily for him, when they got to the police station, his blood test came up negative. Now he is only being charged with a misdemeanor possesion. In other words: He just saved $10,000 dollars or more, and kept some very nasty things off his record.                  

(With this additude, and the cost of a D.U.I. averaging $10,000, the D.O.T. treasury is sure to be overflowing soon!)

I wasn’t so lucky, I was found guilty on all charges and now owe a $180 dollar fine, and must attend a $75 dollar defensive driving class. With the price of gas already through the roof, this on top of it makes me mad that the car was ever invented. Wait, I take that back, I love cars. It just makes me want to crawl into some dark cave and die. I am now $255 poorer, which means I have to tell the gf no more dates till I get paid at the end of the month. Oh well, life goes on.

The Sixth Amendment, on Trial.

       The reason lawyers exist is because some people cannot understand or interpret our laws. Lawyers study for years, and can only assume the practice after taking an oath that they will do what ever they can to defend their client, guilty or not. The sixthamendment stands to grant those of us who do not have a very good understanding of the process of law, withsomeone who has a very thorough understanding process of law. By not appointing the accused with proper counsel, we run the risk of wrongly convicting an innocent person that could not properly represent themselves in court. The cartoon below depicts the cross-examination of a defendant without a lawyer.

 

            In the February, 1963 trial of Gideon vs. Wainwright, Clarence Gideon was denied counsel by the state of Florida on the basis that he was not being charged witha capitol offence. Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Pool Hall on 3 June, 1961, after a witness claimed to have seen him inside the building. Guilty or not, notes from the trial claim he did a poor job of representing himself. He was then sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. While there he researched the Bill of Rights in the prison library, and in turn filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of his sixth amendment right. Does the constitution make a distinction between capitol and non-capitol offences? By making this claim, was the court denying Mr. Gideon his sixth amendment right? What are the consequences of denying someone their sixth amendment right? Read on to find out.

 (This undated photo of Clarence Gideon was probably taken around the time of his trial.)

            The Supreme Court Found no such discrepancy upheld by Florida law between Capitol and Non-Capitol offences. And therefore through the due process of law granted by the sixth amendment, and up-held by the fourteenth amendment, granted him another trial

and proper counsel to represent him. With the proper counsel of W. Fred Turner, Gideon was re-tried and acquitted.

 

 

 

The following excerpt is the ruling of the supreme court as delivered by Justice Black.

 

 (This is a Photo of Justice Hugo Black. Mr. Justice Black is considered to be one of the most influential justices of the 20th century.)

PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY, GIDEON CONDUCTED HIS DEFENSE ABOUT AS
WELL AS COULD BE EXPECTED FROM A LAYMAN. . . THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF
GUILTY, AND PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE FIVE YEARS IN THE STATE
PRISON. LATER, PETITIONER FILED IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT THIS
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ATTACKING HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR HIM DENIED
HIM RIGHTS “GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS BY
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.”. . .  THE PROBLEM OF A DEFENDANT’S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN A STATE COURT HAS BEEN A CONTINUING SOURCE OF CONTROVERSYAND LITIGATION IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. (FN2) TO GIVE THIS PROBLEM ANOTHER REVIEW HERE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 370 U.S. 908.
SINCE GIDEON WAS PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WE APPOINTED COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT HIM AND REQUESTED BOTH SIDES TO DISCUSS IN THEIR BRIEFS AND
ORAL ARGUMENTS THE FOLLOWING: “SHOULD THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, BE RECONSIDERED?”

 

In other words: The supreme court realized that Gideon did not represent himself very well in court. And  because of this he received a guilty verdict. The supreme court also recognized that the sixth amendment had been a major source of controversy in recent cases. The supreme court then decided to reconsider Betts vs. Brady 1942 (Defendant was denied his right to counsel because he was charged with a non-capitol offence.) After reconsidering they decided to grant him counsel and rehear the case. The significance of justice Black in this case is that he was involved in the case Betts vs. Brady, twenty years proir. In which the outcome was quite the converse.

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

In conclusion, I agree with the ruling of the court. I believe that all crimes should be looked at as carefully as possible, to avoid wrongful imprisonment. As stated previously, Gideon was acquitted after his second trial(with proper counsel), which means he spent nearly a year in jail wrongly accused.                                                     It is ridiculous to think that someone would interpret the sixth amendment exclude all crimes except capitol offences. If more cases had been carried out following these circumstances, many people could have been wrongfully convicted. This case played a major role in the interpretation of the sixth amendment, and proved that even United States Supreme Court Justices can change their minds.

Bibliography:

 

1. http://supcourt.ntis.gov/page4.html?cmd=search&cn_words1=gideon&cn_words2=wainwright&mode=casename
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

 __________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits:

1.http://www.art-wise.com/images3/27.JPG

2.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/images/gideon.jpg

3.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1b/Hugo_Black.jpg/300px-Hugo_Black.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, I agree with the ruling of the court. I believe that all crimes should be looked at as carefully as possible, to avoid wrongful imprisonment. As stated previously, Gideon was acquitted after his second trial(with proper counsel), which means he spent nearly a year in jail wrongly accused.

Bibliography:

 

1. http://supcourt.ntis.gov/page4.html?cmd=search&cn_words1=gideon&cn_words2=wainwright&mode=casename
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

 __________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits:

1.http://www.art-wise.com/images3/27.JPG

2.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/images/gideon.jpg

3.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1b/Hugo_Black.jpg/300px-Hugo_Black.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, I agree with the ruling of the court. I believe that all crimes should be looked at as carefully as possible, to avoid wrongful imprisonment. As stated previously, Gideon was acquitted after his second trial(with proper counsel), which means he spent nearly a year in jail wrongly accused.

Bibliography:

 

1. http://supcourt.ntis.gov/page4.html?cmd=search&cn_words1=gideon&cn_words2=wainwright&mode=casename
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

 __________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits:

1.http://www.art-wise.com/images3/27.JPG

2.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/images/gideon.jpg

3.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1b/Hugo_Black.jpg/300px-Hugo_Black.jpg