Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to everyone, but it can be difficult to ensure that it is correctly applied to defendants with disabilities. That has led to major problems, and has been addressed by several cases, including Faretta v. California (1975), McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984), Godinez v. Moran (1993), and Indiana v. Edwards (2008). These cases showcased the issue that the standard for competency to stand trial was linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself. While that seems to make perfect sense, it is actually quite harmful to people who have disabilities, because they may not be able to correctly represent themselves and cannot always be held to the same standards that would be seen with people who do not suffer from any kind of disability. The right to counsel is highly important, because not having counsel can make it very difficult for a defendant to assert any of the other rights he or she has. Laypeople cannot easily navigate the complexities of the legal system without help from an attorney, and that may be even more accurate for those with disabilities, depending on the particular disability the person has. The Sixth Amendment has remained unchanged since it was created in 1791, but the way in which the right to counsel has been interpreted has changed a great deal between 1791 and the modern day. The original thought was that a person had the right to pay for an attorney to represent them, which meant that people who did not have money...
Those with disabilities were often shunned and/or not able to make the kind of money needed for an attorney. If they were accused of something, they could not get counsel, leading to them generally ending up being judged guilty due to their lack of ability to properly understand the proceedings and defend themselves. The right to counsel that is used today does not require deep pockets.
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution covers the protection of the individual from unlawful searches and seizures when in the privacy of their own home. Because of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers are required to secure an official court order or warrant to search the premises, and that warrant must be based on probable cause. Although the Fourth Amendment does protect against the intrusion onto private property, there are several exceptions
Once the suspect is "the accused," and the right to counsel has been attached, the suspect cannot be interrogated by any means, including by undercover officers or secretive means. Only when the suspect openly volunteers information and waives a lawyer, can information after he is "the accused" be used against him or her. This even applies when a suspect is out of jail on bail awaiting trial. These methods
Hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause of Amendment VI. The main objective of the American constitutional provision under study was: prevention of ex-parte affidavit deposition, which was employed against prisoners in place of personal questioning and cross-questioning of witnesses. (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Sixth Amendment). The main objectives that this paper will look at include: The confrontation right is one among the basic assurances of liberty and life The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause assures
Hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause of Amendment VI. The main objective of the American constitutional provision under study was: prevention of ex-parte affidavit deposition, which was employed against prisoners in place of personal questioning and cross-questioning of witnesses. (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Sixth Amendment). The main objectives that this paper will look at include: The confrontation right is one among the basic assurances of liberty and life The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause assures
Civil Rights and Police Departments The outline for basic civil rights in America is deceptively simple and straightforward; it appears in the Bill of Rights, with a concentration on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Taken together, these amendments govern the ability of the government to conduct searches and seizures, dictate the rules required for arrest, guarantee the right to remain silent, provide the right to an attorney, and prohibit
The idea of remaining silent when faced with accusation has historical religious and legal roots. Moses teachings', transformed to written form by the ancient Talmudic law had a complete ban on self-incrimination. The self-incrimination law could not be changed because it was viewed to contravene the natural instinct for survival. The ancient common law rule also had it that confusions must be voluntary. When the right to remain silent was
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now