American Military University Wk7 Dual Threat Amendment Discussion & Responses
Rights at Trial Question: As you've learned throughout this course, defendants receive numerous rights during a criminal trial. Discuss, in detail, two of those rights and explain why they are crucial to ensuring a fair trial.
Classmate post
Classmate 1 Alexcia: The United States median income is approximately sixty-thousand a year. An attorney costs, on average, one hundred to three hundred dollars an hour. Not everyone is able to afford an attorney even though they may desperately need one. The right to counsel is a very serious and important right. Most Americans do not know their basic rights, let alone, how to defend themselves in a court of law. “In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a defendant gains the right to an attorney “at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment."(Legal Information, n.d.) Those who commit a crime and come from lower income areas, need assistance with funding their counsel. They are given the help of a court appointed attorney. While this should be seen as a good thing, court appointed attorneys have a stigma of being less effective than a highly paid attorney. In my opinion, the right to counsel is very important. I do not think whether you can afford the attorney should determine who represents you. This is especially true if the individual on trial does not think the attorney is acting in their best interest. Attorneys should be required to do a certain amount of pro bono work per year. It is understood that attorneys go to school for a very long time and commit themselves to each case. However, some people work multiple full time jobs and still are unable to reach above poverty. They should not be subject to an attorney who does not care or will not put their best effort into the case just because they are unable to pay. I also agree with the Supreme Courts ruling in Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 431 (1986),that an individual does not need the right to counsel before they are given their Miranda Rights. As I previously stated, most individuals do not know their basic rights. Law enforcement officers read suspects their Miranda Rights to inform them of what their next steps are. This is where the individual will be told that they have the right to have an attorney present upon questioning. They are also made aware that if they cannot afford an attorney, the courts will appoint one for them.
After conducting some research I did find that the Supreme Court established a two-prong test to ensure a court appointed attorney was doing their job correctly. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) it was established that if the court appointed attorney fails to meet the criteria set forth in the two-prong test, a new trial with new counsel will be given. (Legal Information, n.d.) I think this is an extremely necessary test to have. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot afford adequate counsel, there needs to be regulations to ensure that you are given a fair trial. This is exactly what the two-prong test did.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) Right to Counsel. Cornell Law School. Accessed 2021 April 9.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_counsel
Walter W. Steele Jr., The Doctrine of Right to Counsel: Its Impact on the Administration of Criminal
Justice and the Legal Profession, 23 Sw L.J. 488 (1969) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol23/iss3/4
Classmate 2 Stephnie: As an officer that has in the past worked court duties, I believe the right to counsel is extremely meaningful. The courts process is not an easy task to navigate and defendants entering the courtroom to face their charges without guidance is malice and unresponsible. Time after time, even with counsel I have watched people sit with a puzzled look on their face during proceedings and in my experience I feel that many of those defendants don't get enough time with their attorneys period. They are often shuffled in and out because of an overwhelmed system but thats another topic for another day.
The right to counsel refers to a defendant and their right to have an attorney assist in their defense and if they cannot afford said attorney one is appointed for him or her. The 6th amendment gives a defendant this right on federal prosecutions and state prosecutions. State attachment did not apply until 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 which shifted things and guaranteed every criminal defendant in a felony trial the right to a lawyer. While in misdemeanors cases there still is no guaranteed right to counsel.(Wex Law, n.d)
When does this attach? The supreme court ruled in In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977 that a defendant gains the right to an attorney “at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment."(Wex Law, n.d)
Effective Counsel, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does a defendant deserve an appointed attorney but that the attorney must be effective in nature. The Strickland standard was a compromise which sought to create a middle ground between more extreme and more relaxed state and federal standards for ineffectiveness claims.
The Supreme Court established a test in relation to this it is a two-prong test for whether a court-appointed attorney has given the proper amount of care to a court-appointed client. The first is the error prong, this establishes whether the counsel's performance is deficient under the circumstances, and if they are performing under a standard of professional norms. The next is the prejudice prong, this looks at whether the conduct of the attorney affected, with reasonable probability, the trial's outcome. If the test is failed a new trial is warranted. A defendant does not have to show that the outcome more likely than not would have been different, but rather that counsel’s errors undermine confidence in the outcome. (Spitzer, 2020)
The issue that arises was noted by a supreme court judge, Justice O’Connor called for the Strickland standard to be revisited. She stated that the standard did not account for outside factors, such as partisan judges and lack of legal aid that could contribute to ineffective counsel under the Sixth Amendment and that in itself is a limitation and should be revisited as the Justice notated. (Spitzer, 2020)
Reference
Spitzer, E (2020). Strickland v. Washington: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/strickland-v-washington-4768693
Wex Law (n.d) Right to Counsel, retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_counsel
Classmate 3 Megan: The right to counsel is most certainly a meaningful one. Throughout my time as a graduate student and even before during undergrad, I have read multiple articles that speak to the effectiveness of DNA technology in exonerating individuals convicted of a crime they did not commit as well as the misconduct that goes on within the legal process. After reading further this week, it makes one wonder how often innocent people are locked away simply because of their lawyers. The first issue at hand is the “effective assistance of counsel” set forth by the Supreme Court. This is far too restricting and makes it very difficult for people to gain access to other legal help. I understand that public defense attorneys are overwhelmed but we must not use this as an excuse. It is people’s lives at stake and each person, regardless of the crime, should be given the best available resources and at the very least be able to challenge that legal counsel if not enough is being done on their behalf. West (2010) reveals case after case of exonerated individuals who were forced to remain incarcerated due to the lack of decent counsel. Some lawyers even went as far as refusing to do as the defendant asked, not filing for DNA testing due to cost, and refusing to file for appeal (West, 2012).
Something needs to be done to increase resources and funding for public defenders. It has long been an issue that public defenders are overworked and their caseloads are unreasonable (West, 2012). If better funding incentives were available and better legal counsel was available, there could be less innocent people incarcerated. The right to counsel is a constitutional right and should be protected just as much as the rest. There needs to be more oversight into the cases of public defenders to ensure enough is being done and people are not being ignored and neglected. I believe this is a neglected issue because it is out of sight out of mind until someone close to you or even you have to deal directly with the legal system and public defenders.
I believe the “effective assistance of counsel” set forth by the Supreme Court is too restrictive in relation to our current state appointed legal counsel. If there was better oversight to ensure people were getting the legal counsel they are entitled to then it would not be. It is interesting that West (2012) also described ineffective counsel when private lawyers were used. This means it may not just be state appointed counsel that provides ineffective services.
References:
West, E. (2010). Court Findings of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims in Post-Conviction Appeals Among the First 255 DNA Exoneration Cases. Innocence Project.
Europe(Continental)