Essay On Gideon V. Cochron

At first viewing of the documentary "Gideon's Army.' * you may become overwhelmed by the dire situation of the criminal justice system in the South, specifically with regard to the poorer and less educated population. To observe how stressed the public defenders are, how tapped the resources, and how desperate the defendants, you struggle with the notion that there may not be anything that can be done and it's too big a problem to overcome. But delving into the professional, and, at times, personal life of Travis Williams, a public defender in Georgia, you feel determination and hope. Williams advocates for each client with passion and diligence.

This procedure shaped an all white jury. Defense counsel opposed this development prior to the

The year is 1963, and Clarence Earl Gideon is falsely accused of a crime. Under Florida law, being charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, and Mr. Gideon was the unfortunate victim here (Facts par 2). Like many Americans of his time, Clarence had only an eighth education (Facts par 1). He roamed in and out of prisons, which explains why he was poor (Facts par 1). Lacking the funds to pay an attorney, Clarence requested the judge to appoint him one (Facts par 2).

The defense argued that the peremptory strikes were based off of race. Snyder appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which found that the judge did not act unreasonably in dismissing the case as a Batson violation. This case parallels the case at hand. The prosecutor used their peremptory strikes to remove the black jurors for pretext reasons, not justifiable ones. In Foster’s case, the court used reasons such as the jurors being too close in age to the defendant, Foster, to strike a prospective juror.

Gideon v. Wainwright( 1963, 9-0 Vote Decision) Facts of the Case/Question Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony because he broke into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court, Gideon requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him because he did not have one. However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to a needy defendant in capital cases, so the court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself at the trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.

In a civil trial, it is the duty of the judge or jury to examine the evidence, and determine if the defendant should be held legally responsible for allegations presented by the plaintiff. As we analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we will discuss the allegations, positions of each party, and laws involved to factually support allegations and refutes. Before we can analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we must first understand the positions of each party and the allegations that uniquely makes the case. Norma Gilo, the plaintiff, requested legal action against her former employer, The Florida Department of Corrections, alleging that she was fired because of: (1) Gender Discrimination,

He then went on to write to the United States Supreme Court, saying he had been denied counsel and his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The United States Supreme Court took his petition, and their decision was announced on March 18, 1963 that they ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon. Due to Gideon’s appeal,numerous other defendants were found to have had their Civil Rights violated. About 2000 individuals that had been convicted were freed in Florida alone as a result of the decision. Gideon’s case had another trial and he was acquitted and went on to resume his previous life.

On that same day, the jury of the Trial Court in Florida found Gideon guilty, and the judge sentenced him to 5 years in prison. While Gideon was in prison, he researched the Constitution of the United States, and found that the 14th Amendment simply stated his cause, therein: “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or the due process of the law.” Gideon further researched the law, in order to determine the process to appeal his conviction. He found the necessary steps were first to petition the Florida court for habeas corpus, in which he wrote of the violation of his 14th amendment rights. The Florida Supreme Court ruled alongside the District Court, and denied his petition.

1) On August 28, 1986, a woman named Queen Madge White was found dead in her home in Rome, Georgia. She was a 79-year-old widow and was found to be beaten, sexually assaulted, and strangled to death. Her home had also been burglarized. Timothy Foster, an 18-year-old black male, confessed to the crime and officers recovered some of the stolen items from Foster’s home. The State subsequently indicted him for malice, murder, and burglary and the jury that was selected convicted him of capital murder and assigned the death penalty.

As the trial came to a close end the jury announced that Clarence Earl Gideon was guilty, and was convicted five years in prison. While being in jail Gideon filed a petition before the Florida Supreme Court declaring that the State of Florida had proclaimed an unfair case trial by denying him his Sixth Amendment the Right to the Assistance of Counsel. The petition sent to the Supreme Court was denied. Next, Gideon did not fall back; he appealed his case to the U.S Supreme Court claiming that putting him on trial without a lawyer was unfair due to the fact that it denied him due process of law against the 14th Amendment. The U.S Supreme Court came to a conclusion to review Gideon’s case, which

Prior to South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805, Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496, and Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, victims did not have a voice in criminal cases other than reporting a crime, and testifying at trial. Unlike the offender, victims were relegated to sit in abeyance until the trial was over. In Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a crime victim couldn’t coerce a criminal prosecution because "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another" (Donahoe, 1999). This case supported the fact that victims had little to no legal rights within a court of law. The U.S. Constitution recognizes rights for someone who commits a

Coincidentally White As Reconstruction drew to a close in early 1877, a national debate about the proper selection of jury pools came to the forefront. Two major Supreme Court cases highlight this debate: Virginia v. Rives and Ex Parte Virginia, both of which stemmed from the killing of Aaron Shelton in Patrick County, Virginia. Following a seemingly unjust verdict given by an all-white jury pool in the murder trial, the defense attorneys petitioned a federal district judge, Alexander Rives. Rives not only took over the case, but also "charged a racially mixed federal grand jury" to "consider whether to indict state judges in the five counties from which the jurors were drawn" (HBS Rec.

Clarence E. Gideon fought for the right for everyone, no matter the special circumstances, to have legal representation in court. This was Gideon’s promise. However, his promise is lost in transition. Although people are now receiving the legal counsel they needed, the quality of the legal counsel is not what they deserve. These counsel are sometimes unfit for the trials they are given causing unfair and often wrongful decisions.

Issues of race and justice were brought to the fore of America’s public conscience during the 1990s. No case laid bare these divisions more than the trial of the century, O J Simpson vs the State of California, which featured a black former NFL star, O J Simpson, accused of murdering his white ex-wife and her new partner. Despite extensive evidence compiled by the prosecution, the head of O J’s legal defense team, Johnnie Cochran, managed to persuade a predominantly African American jury to acquit O J through a series of arguments best summarized in his summation speech. The language Cochran deploys not only creates a complimentary tone but further aligns himself with the experiences of African Americans to gain the jury’s trust before deftly

Peremptory Challenges are Ruining the Justice System Cassidy Watson, an African American male, has been wrongfully accused in the state of Alabama of murdering 10-year-old Mya Morris. Today, he sits within a courtroom awaiting his hearing to begin. Moments pass, and the plaintiff’s lawyer has struck a juror from the jury; this juror is the only African American seated at the mostly Caucasian jury. In response, the judge asks the lawyer to explain why he struck the juror. The lawyer stated that the African American woman was “too vocal about her opinions.”