Flashcards in Chapter 19-Right to counsel related to policing Deck (19)
6th Amend- right to counsel in criminal prosecutions
in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right, to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
seminal case on right to counsel is
Powell v Alabama, 1932
trial in a state court for a capital offense without a defense attorny violated the right to due process
first major right to counsel case involving the police is
Escobedo v Illinois, 1964
Court held that the suspect in a serious offense is entitled to a lawyer during interrogation at a police station. Escobedo is credited with having brought the right to counsel out into the police station, instead of being confined to courtroom.
Two years later after Escobedo, Miranda v Arizona
extended right to counsel and privileges against self-incrimination . Those rights apply whenever there is "custodial interrogation", even if interrogation took place outside a police station. Miranda brought the right to counsel out into the streets.
Trial in state court of nine youths for capital offense without a defense attorney violated their right to due process
Powell v Alabama, 1932
nine black youths charged with rape of two white girls while on a train in Alabama. All were illiterate.
All boys were not represented by any attorney by name until day of trial. Youths given death penalty
Powell case provides the often-quoted reason, (penned by Justice Sutherland), for this constitutional provision.
Without a lawyer, an accused may be convicted, not because he or she is guilty, but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.
In Powell, the Court used the due process clause of the 14th Amend rather than the 6th Amend right to counsel to overturn the convictions. why
in 1932, the provisions of the Bill of Rights had not yet been extended to state proceedings. If decided today, the 6th Amend right to counsel provision would have been used.
a lawyer must be appointed for an indigent who is charged with a felony offense in state court
Gideon v Wainwright,1963
Gideon charged in Florida state court with breaking and entering a poolroom w/intent to commit misd, an act classified as a felony in Florida. Gideon appeared in court without funds and without lawyer. Gideon asked the court to appoint a lawyer but court refused.
Gideon case mandates that when an indigent person is charged with felony in state court,
counsel must be provided.
in 1963, both federal and state felony defendants must be given court appointed counsel if indigent
Gideon v Wainwright
Argersinger v Hamlin
court appointed counsel if indigent given to misd cases
suspect in a serious offense is entitled to a lawyer during interrogation at police station
Escobedo v Illoins, 1964
Escobedo arrested without warrant and interrogated in connection with a murder. Escobedo asked for attorney. He retained an attorney and at police station, the attorney was denied to speak with Escobedo. Escobedo finally admitted to some knowledge of the murder.
Escobedo case the police had indeed grossly violated
Escobedo's right to counsel.
Incriminating statements are not admissible in court if defendant was questioned by government informant without an attorney present after defendant was formally charged with a crime and had obtained an attorney
Massiah v United States, 1964
Massiah indicted for possession of narcotics aboard US vessel. While out on bail, officials used enlisted the aid of one of Massiah's confederates. Informant allowed officials to install a transmitter under front seat to listen to conversations. officials obtained incriminating statements.. Violation of Massiah 6th Amend right to counsel. evidence inadmissible
defendant right to counsel is violated if the police intentionally create a situation that is likely to elicit incriminating statements.
Unites States v Henry, 1980
Henry indicted for robbery and incarcerated. While in jail, officials used a cell mate as an informant. Statements inadmissble violation of 6th Amend, right to counsel. This case was decided un Massiah v United States.
An informant's testimony is admissible to impeach a defendant's statements, even if elicited in violation of 6th Amend protection right to counsel.
Kansas v Ventris, 2009
ventris linked to a robbery-murder involving 3 subjs. one subj charges were dropped in exchange for an agreement to identify Ventris as shooter. Police placed an informant in Ventris jail cell. Ventris admitted to shooting and robbing the victim.
at trial, Ventris took the stand and placed blame on another subj. Even though informants gathered statements were in violation of Ventris 6th Amend, it was allowed for impeachment purposes.
Court ruled in Ventris, that the prosecution was using the informant and information to impeach Ventris statements, not to convict him
Statements made to police in the context of an ongoing emergency may be admitted into court even when there is no possibility to cross-examine a witness
Michigan v Bryant, 2011
shooting victim told police before he died, that he was shot by Bryant.
In Crawford v Washington, 2004 Court ruled that for testimonial evidence to be admissible in court, the confrontation clause of the 6th Amend was a requirement. But in Bryant, Court ruled that when officers are acting in their first responder role and attempting to resolve an emergency situation , statements made by those involved may be considered nontestimonial for the purposes of the 6th Amend confrontation clause.