Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

Introduction

Concept of rights to counsel

The right to the assistance of counsel is a principle right given to all criminal defendants. The Sixth Amendment accommodates that every person accused shall enjoy the assistance of an attorney. It is a legal responsibility of the government to provide a court appointed attorney at crucial stages in the criminal proceedings for every defendant if they cannot afford to hire one. This guarantees and ensures the defendant to have a legally fair proceeding (Farlex, 2013).

Discussion

Question 1

The 6th Amendment

William M. Beaney explained the Rights of Counsel as “whatever time a legal matter takes place, even if it is opposed to an illegal speaker in a public area, the advocate of undesirable holy faith, or an individual is charged of an assault or homicide, the process of legal proceedings through a trial and the result give us in practice whatever meaning the rule of law obtains.” (Mason & Stephenson, 2011, p. 391).

The 6th Amendment of the United States constitution deals with the rights of every individual accused with a criminality. The hearing will also accommodate a reading of the allegations and it must have a legit ground against the defendant. The defendant will also have a right to affront any witness that is produced against him and to the right to subpoena the affidavit of any proof in his favor and the right to an attorney .The main reason to write this amendment in the constitution was to protect the rights of an individual and to provide legal proceedings to anyone charged with a crime (Farlex, 2013).

Smith vs. Illinois, 1968

In this case the State of Illinois not submitting the proof and declarations collected from an informant who was working undercover for the police, against a defendant accused of drug dealing. The state was not presenting with the witness as it may uncover covert operations of the police department.

The defendant in this case claimed his 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause right stating that the witness is violated and that the conviction should be thrown out. The Court agreed with the defendant (revolutionary war and beyond, 2013).

Smith vs. Hooey, 1969

In this case, the accused was charged with a Texas crime. He spent 7 years in the state prison and still the case was not prosecuted, so he claimed that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed that the defendant's rights had been violated and to drop the charges because the state did not even made an effort to try the case (revolutionary war and beyond, 2013).

Question 2

Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961

Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961 was a historical case in which the evidence was collected by ignoring the fourth amendment of U.S Constitution which clearly bans “superficial exploration and seizing”. This act is unacceptable in State courts. This amendment forbids declining life, freedom and real estate without due process of law.

Cleveland federal authorities forcibly entered the resident of Dollree Mapp and made a search without ...