Criminal justice gideon vs wainwright u s

Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor.

Criminal justice gideon vs wainwright u s

In the plea colloquy, respondent told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, he had no significant prior criminal record and that, at the time of his criminal spree, he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. The trial judge told respondent that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility.

Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the trial judge sentenced respondent to death on each of the murder counts.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, and respondent then sought collateral relief in state court on the ground, inter alia, that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding in several respects, including his failure to request a psychiatric report, to investigate and present character witnesses, and to seek a presentence report.

The trial court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court advancing numerous grounds for relief, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right Page U. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.

A number of practical considerations are important for the application of the standards set forth above. The standards do not establish mechanical rules; the ultimate focus of inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is being challenged. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed.

The principles governing ineffectiveness claims apply in federal collateral proceedings as they do on direct appeal or in motions for a new trial. And in a federal habeas challenge to a state criminal judgment, a state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by 28 U.

I A During a day period in September,respondent planned and committed three groups of crimes, which included Page U.

After his two accomplices were arrested, respondent surrendered to police and voluntarily gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third of the criminal episodes.

The State of Florida indicted respondent for kidnaping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him.

Counsel actively pursued pretrial motions and discovery. He cut his efforts short, however, and he experienced a sense of hopelessness about the case, when he learned that, against his specific advice, respondent had also confessed to the first two murders.

By the date set for trial, respondent was subject to indictment for three counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of robbery, kidnaping for ransom, breaking and entering and assault, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit robbery. In the plea colloquy, respondent told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, he had no significant prior criminal record, and that, at the time of his criminal spree, he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family.

He also stated, however, that he accepted responsibility for the crimes. The trial judge told respondent that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility," but that he was making no statement at all about his likely sentencing decision.

Counsel advised respondent to invoke his right under Florida law to an advisory jury at his capital sentencing hearing.

Respondent rejected the advice and waived the right. He chose instead to be sentenced by the trial judge without a jury recommendation. In preparing for the sentencing hearing, counsel spoke with respondent about his background.

He also spoke on Page U. He did not otherwise seek out character witnesses for respondent. Nor did he request a psychiatric examination, since his conversations with his client gave no indication that respondent had psychological problems.

Counsel also excluded from the sentencing hearing other evidence he thought was potentially damaging. Counsel also argued that respondent had no history of criminal activity, and that respondent committed Page U. He further argued that respondent should be spared death because he had surrendered, confessed, and offered to testify against a codefendant, and because respondent was fundamentally a good person who had briefly gone badly wrong in extremely stressful circumstances.

The State put on evidence and witnesses largely for the purpose of describing the details of the crimes. The trial judge found several aggravating circumstances with respect to each of the three murders.

He found that all three murders were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel, all involving repeated stabbings. All three murders were committed in the course of at least one other dangerous and violent felony, and since all involved robbery, the murders were for pecuniary gain.

All three murders were committed to avoid arrest for the accompanying crimes and to hinder law enforcement. With respect to mitigating circumstances, the trial judge made the same findings for all three capital murders.Through this lesson you will learn what defines a civil society and what types of organizations fall into this category.

You'll also gain an. Gideon v.

Criminal justice gideon vs wainwright u s

Wainwright, U.S. () Gideon v. Wainwright. No. Argued January 15, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.

This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Justice Field, the first Justice Harlan, and probably Justice Brewer, took that position in O'Neil v. Vermont, U.S. , , , as did Justices BLACK, DOUGLAS, Murphy and Rutledge in . Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school.

He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. Brady, U.S. , was decided by a divided [ U.S.

, ] Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. Wainwright, U.S. (), is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In it, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants in criminal Full case name: Clarence E. Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, Corrections Director.

Table of Contents (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)