This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

The Right To Appointed Counsel In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court Prior To Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

1804 words - 7 pages

The right to appointed counsel in decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

From the Judiciary Act to incorporation doctrine
In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the US Supreme Court stated in the name of Chief Justice Earl Warren that “…He [accused] has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation” (Harrison, 2006, p. 68).
Nevertheless, despite obvious necessity of a counsel to ensure the due process, the right to counsel has long-standing and ambiguous history in the United States.
Back to the 18th century, the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Section 35) gave defendants in federal cases the right to counsel and most states had similar law (Holmes, 2012, p. 110). Therefore, the intent to establish certain rights for accused due to proposed fundamental fairness of criminal process can be found at the very beginning of the young American republic. However, it stated just the right to have a counsel. The government was not supposed to appoint one.

In the following year the Federal Crimes Act of 1790 gave a ruling that “Congress imposed a duty on federal courts to assign counsel in capital cases, and […] custom developed in most federal courts to appoint counsel for indigent in all serious crimes” (Urofsky, 2001, p. 170).
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Sixth Amendment and its particular clause pertaining to a counsel state that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”. Regardless of its unquestioning importance, the Sixth Amendment laid the foundation for the continuing controversies.
Despite the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, accused “were not protected in all state courts. Each state was free to interpret sixth amendment in its own way. Some states chose to deny poor defendants the right to an attorney, even in capital cases, where the punishment could be death” (Fridell, 2006, pp. 33-34).
That such a mazy and very discretional situation with application rights of accused to the state level remained without any significant changes for decades. Not until the case Powell v. Alabama (1932) which is the merely first case in the row of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that led to incorporation the full range of rights to the state level, and particularly the right of appointed counsel.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)
In this case nine African American men were indicted for the rape of two white girls. All accused were tried by all-white jury in the very hostile atmosphere. The accused men were not very educated and they even could not read.
During the process, defendants were not represented by a counsel, the judge appointed “all members of the bar” to defend them (Vile, 2010, p....

Find Another Essay On The Right to Appointed Counsel in Decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

United States Supreme Court in the Case of McCarve v. North Carolina in Accordance with the Eight Amendment

1296 words - 6 pages Brief provided by the APA helps to give assistance in using a set of procedures to follow when dealing with capital crimes of the mentally retarded (APA, 2013). The United States Supreme Court ruled that the execution of those who suffer from mental retardation is cruel and unusual punishment and voted in a 6-3 ruling to use alternate means of punishment for these individuals (APA, 2013). In the case of Atkins V Virginia the court had decided

Rosenberg, Epp, and Miranda: Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions

2979 words - 12 pages States (1964) which extended the right to counsel upon indictment (Leo 626). Self-incrimination rights were extended in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) discussed above (626-7). Chief Justice Warren wrote the Opinion of the Court. The Court examined how the psychological techniques of the police can be coercive, and conclude “coercion can be mental as well as physical” (Miranda v. Arizona 4). The Court goes on to describe how police manuals

The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1918 words - 8 pages 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

The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1781 words - 8 pages 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

Miranda v. Arizona

1206 words - 5 pages counsel, but at his trial he did have the right to a lawyer. At that hearing they found Ernesto Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape, and because of his crimes he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Some of the questions that came up in court were questions such as, When should an attorney be appointed for a person if they cannot afford one? (Miranda v. Arizona www.infoplease.com) One more thing about the case is that a lot of people

The Supreme Court Extends 2nd Amendment Rights to the States

1205 words - 5 pages The Supreme Court ruled on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms applies on state and city levels. The 5-4 decision along ideological lines echoed 2008's decision to strike down DC's handgun ban, citing the 14th Amendment as a major factor in the decision to extend the federal right to own a hand gun for personal protection down to local levels. Though it officially returned McDonald v. City of Chicago to the

Miranda v. Arizona

1293 words - 6 pages Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. He was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of an attorney. In the first part of his interrogation, Miranda denied having any involvement in the crime, but after two hours he confessed to the crime in writing. (Street Law) Miranda went to Arizona local court where it was decided that he would be sentenced to twenty to thirty years in jail. (Gitlin) In jail

Miranda V. Arizona

943 words - 4 pages had an attorney.The plaintiff was denied his rights to remain silent until proven guilty and he had no knowledge of the right to an attorney. While, the defendant states that he had enough legal evidence to lead to conviction or Mr. Miranda. The court is concerned with the fact that the plaintiff did not have his legal rights stated to him which violates his right to the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. This case of Miranda V. Arizona brings

Role of the United States Supreme Court in obtaining equality for Blacks during Reconstruction

1595 words - 6 pages The role played by the United States' Supreme Court in obtaining equality for Black Americans was one of immense stature. The Supreme Court is the court that can only consider federal questions, or anything to do with federal law. Since obtaining equality for Blacks was such a trivial process and the legislation that was involved was open to much interpretation, much responsibility rested with the Supreme Court from 1896 to 1996 in determining

Miranda V Arizona

1002 words - 5 pages stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably. Our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have changed since the Miranda v. Arizona case got brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court and its effects on the balance of power between federal and state. (McCullogh v Maryland, Lochner v NY, Nebbia v NY) The role of Supreme Court in relation to federalism

2020 words - 8 pages Court had the right to play the role they did. One significant case was McCulloch v. Maryland, which took place in 1819. In 1816, the Federal government put into effect a charter for the Second Bank of the United States. Maryland statute prohibited all banks not chartered by Maryland to issue bank notes, unless they paid an annual tax of $15,000 or a $500 fine for each note issued. McCulloch, chief officer of the bank in Maryland, issued

Similar Essays

How The Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Spurred The Supreme Court To Specifically Outline The Necessary Aspects Of Police Warnings To Suspects

1215 words - 5 pages believe in the American constitution, and it's main purpose to preserve the rights and the liberties of the people of the United States. Subsequent appointments of several new members in recent years, has produced a Supreme Court decidedly more cautious in protecting the rights of accused persons.In conclusion, the Miranda versus Arizona case made a significant difference in the police and court system in the United States. The case of Miranda vs

The United States Supreme Court Essay

670 words - 3 pages the law is constitutional or not.The Supreme Court of the United States, composed of a chief justice and eight associate justices, is at the apex of the U.S. judicial system. Provisions for the making of the Supreme Court were made in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution does not stipulate the size of the Court, leaving that determination to congressional statute

The United States Supreme Court Essay

1975 words - 8 pages THE UNITED STATESSUPREMECOURTI've chosen to research on the Supreme Court and it's Justices. This seemed like an interesting topic to me, because someday I want to be a part of the legal system.The Supreme Court of the United States, composed of a chief justice and eight associate justices, is at the apex of the U.S. judicial system. Provisions for the making of the Supreme Court were made in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to

Miranda Vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court Decision Detailed The Principles Governing Police Interrogation: The Miranda Rights

1505 words - 6 pages suspect indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that s/he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right but a preservation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against forced self-incrimination.For example, in the case of Fellers v. United States, which closed on January 26, 2004, police officers went to the