Saskia Teterycz
Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
6th Amendment
Saskia Teterycz
"Facts And Case Summary - Gideon V. Wainwright." United States Courts. N. p., 2019. Web. 22 Aug. 2019.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was in Florida when the crime was committed. The state also considered this crime to be a felony under Florida law. Gideon appeared in court without an attorney and requested the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford one. The judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida Law only permitted appointment of council for poor defendants with capital charges. In this case, Gideon was not capitally charged for his crime so despite his poverty, he was not granted the appointment of council. Gideon was required to represent himself at trial “he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence.” The Jury’s disposition in Bay County Circuit court found Gideon guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Gideon was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
He continued to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus for the Florida Supreme Court
Gideon stated in his petition that his conviction violated his constitutional right to an attorney in which he was denied by the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court (in which the case originated) denied Gideon’s petition. He then filed a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court heard the case and decided that Gideon’s petition was valid and that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is necessary in order to hold a fair and equal trial.
After a unanimous vote (9-0) in the U.S. Supreme Court for the petition of Gideon v. Wainwright, the court ruled that “states are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony”, not just capital charges. It “asserted that no defendant, however competent or well educated, could provide an adequate self-defense against the state and that the U.S. Constitution ensured legal representation to all defendants charged with felonies.”
The Florida State court as well as the Florida Supreme Court Gideon was initially tried in was far more conservative than the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Gideon participated in after his petition was filed and accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is my understanding the U.S. Supreme Court was entirely liberal when analyzing the circumstances and claims made by Abe Fortas, Gideon’s trial attorney in front of the Supreme Court and the way the Court then listened and unanimously voted in a favorable way.
The case was decided in Warren Court in which Earl Warren was chief justice at that time. The Chief Justice presides over the court and the cases that fall into it. Earl Warren played a big part in Gideon v. Wainwright by accepting Gideon’s petition and approving it as well as changing the law by recognizing the Sixth Amendment and altering it for all states.
The amendment that applies mostly to this case is the 6th Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” The case applies mostly to this amendment because it is entirely what Gideon was basing his appeal off of. He was not granted a fair trial causing his incarceration, which infringed upon his basic human rights within the justice system.
This case applies today because of the absolute necessity to have a lawyer and jury in the modern age of the justice system. It guarantees a fair trial to each and every person and ensures the accused will not be assumed guilty unless challenged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
2nd Amendment
Saskia Teterycz
cases, Browse, U.S. Court, and McDonald Chicago. "Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 | Casetext." Casetext.com. N. p., 2019. Web. 22 Aug. 2019.
Otis McDonald was a 76 year old retired African-American man living in a part of Chicago in which drug and gang violence had grown rapidly and caused numerous break-ins into McDonalds home. McDonald decided that he would like to own a handgun in order to protect himself and his family. At the time, 2010, the City of Chicago had very strict rules that restricted the use and purchase of handguns. “[n]o person shall ... possess ... any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm.” McDonald and three other citizens in his area decided to sue the city and brought the case to court. The case originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. They challenged the city’s interpretation of the second amendment by asking if the individual right to bear arms (including a handgun for self defense) applies to the state and cities in the same way it does to the federal government.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government. “The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.”
The Supreme Court that determined the disposition of the McDonald v. Chicago case was middle-conservative as the ideologies of the justices that voted in the majority were conservative.
Decided by Roberts Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, who favored in the majority opinion, and was able to assign the writing of opinions in the McDonald v. Chicago case because he was a member of the majority.
The amendment that applies mostly to this case is the 2nd Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms. It applies mostly to this because McDonald was demanding on behalf of the people - his right to own a handgun notwithstanding his state’s laws. He believed the 2nd Amendment should apply to individual state governments and not just federal ones.
This case applies today because of the now less regulated gun laws in this country. While it is easier to obtain a gun in the local sense initially relating to self defense, this also increases the risk of gun violence and makes it easier for people with the intent to cause harm to access a gun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
1st Amendment
Saskia Teterycz
"Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission | Opinion, Dissent, Significance, & Influence." Encyclopedia Britannica. N. p., 2019. Web. 22 Aug. 2019.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission
In 2008, a documentary diving deeply into the personal and political life of Hillary Clinton was made discussing opinions on her candidacy for President. In an attempt to regulate “big money” advertising tactics and other campaigning techniques, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and it's heavy restrictions on electioneering communications was able to apply multiple restrictions to the movie. Section 203 of the BCRA “prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries” while section 201 and 311 “require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.”
Citizens United argued that both sections were unconstitutional and infringed upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The case originated in The United States District Court. After the Citizens United filed their claim the sections were unconstitutional, the District Court denied their motion. Section 203 had already been argued on the same grounds under McConnell v. FEC and found constitutional. The District Court found that Hillary: The Movie used negative propaganda against Senator Clinton in order to persuade the audience she was unfit for office.
Because of this, Section 201 and 203 were not found unconstitutional given the circumstances of the content of the movie. The Supreme Court then overturned the status of section 203 “the court argued that it was impossible to decide the case on narrower grounds in a manner consistent with its conviction that “this corporation has a right to speak on this subject.”
The U.S. Supreme Court (conservative wing) ruled (5-4) that the longstanding federal prohibition on corporations and labor unions as well as spending money in federal elections fell. [Ruled that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.]
The Supreme Court that determined the disposition of the Citizens United v. FEC case dissented conservatively despite the very split decision. The court was conservative-middle.
Decided by Roberts Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, who favored in the majority opinion, and was able to assign the writing of opinions in the Citizens United v. FEC case because he was a member of the majority.
The amendment that applies mostly to this case is the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. Citizens United won their case by claiming corporations are people too. Corporations must have the right to express their political opinions and whether or not they support a candidate.
This case applies today because of the political turmoil regarding “big money” electioneering tactics and other campaigning strategies. Trump, who has an empire based off of wealth and supported by big name companies, uses this to his advantage as he is able to get funding because of Companies now being recognized as people.
Comments
Post a Comment