Pick up handout from Tank. There are two sets from Tank, one about 7 pages w/ Court cases and the other quite large, which will be for some required readings and reference for your term paper.
For tonight’s readings:
1. Active reading on the page
2. Five Qs or 1-2 paragraph evaluation here.
– Bromley
Clarification Questions:
What is form pauperis?
What is writ of certiorari?
In the Miranda Rights process, how would speaking with an attorney change anything for the accused?
Thoughtful Questions:
1. How is it insured that the Supreme Court system and choices will always be fair?
2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to deny a case?
3. If Gideon had won the case without an attorney, would it have made a difference if he had one originally or could he had gotten by without one?
4. Does the secrecy of the interrogation process and other police practices make the police force corrupt?
5. I’ve heard stories of nonguilty citizens being accused of a crime. Under interrogation, they become so paranoid that they admit to committing the crime even when they didn’t. What does this show about the interrogation system? Is it flawed? Is it too intense? How do the interrogators identify the differences between the truth and the lies?
Why does the Supreme Court require you to make forty copies of your petition if your no?
Why did the court refuse him aid of Counsel?
Why was it a double standard for State Courts? Why did the Supreme Court always give impoverished prisoned a lawyer but didn’t think the state should? Isn’t that very political of them?
Why does Judge Brandeis say “In most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled right”?
Does this prove the fact that it will constantly have circumstances not thought about by the Constitution?
Does Justice Black’s statement “When Betts v. Brady was decided, I never thought I’d live to see it overruled” imply arrogance since times are constantly changing?
Does putting someone in a room alone while you ask them questions deprive them of a psychological advantage?
Why does the Supreme Court require you to make forty copies of your petition if your not poor?
Does putting someone in a room alone while you ask them questions really deprive them of a psychological advantage?
P.S,
Sorry, accidentally sent it before I got to proofread.
Using the word “poor” instead of “impoverished” is an indicator of Elitism.
A bit of the kettle calling the pot black considering you identified yourself as being apart of the “1%” and you’re from Texas, thus automatically making you the most elitist person here.
I never said I wasn’t an elitist.
I don’t understand how being from Texas makes me an elitist.
I was mostly joking when I identified myself as part of the 1%. I am definitely not part of the one percent, when it comes to income. Joke or not, it was still a very elitist statement, and I never said it wasn’t.
I was mostly saying that I thought that the fundamental points of the Occupy Movements were not as valid as they were meant to be, but I didn’t get to have the chance to explain myself.
Calling other people elitist doesn’t make me not an elitist. Maybe I was welcoming JC, not shunning her.
I apologize for the 1% comment, because it was something I said without thinking about it, similar to how the jailed LoL player wasn’t really going to go shoot up an elementary school and eat the beating hearts of the children. He said that sarcastically, just like I had sarcastic implications in my statement.
Can you elaborate on the Texas being elitists thing? Because from what I know of Texas, much of the population has pride in being in the working class, on the same level as many of their peers.
The fact that you call me out on being an Elitist, and imply that you are looking down on me, makes you an elitist, especially considering the fact that you probably thought your comment would have more weight than my comment, so welcome
Does the fact that I acknowledge the fact that I can use bold text while almost everyone else can not make me an elitist?
Signed,
An Elitist welcoming another Elitist (You and JC)
1. If the Supreme Court is the judge over if a case is constitutional or not, and Gideon is asking the Supreme Court to take his case even though it failed for someone else, why would he try it? If the Supreme Court changes its mind on a case later on, do those people get another trial?
2.In this case is the Supreme Court being Hypocritical or Political?
3. In Betts v. Brady, was Betts a lawyer for himself? If so, Why?
4. Why did the Supreme Court use the Fourteenth Amendments to apply provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states selectively?
5.Why is it a problem that the Court doesn’t say when a case will be decided? Why is it a problem that the decision is announced orally?
6. Why is it always Florida?
1. If the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) are inalienable, why would it be that the general opinion of the Supreme Court was that they were only absorbed by the federal and not the state governments?
2. The 6th amendment clearly states that a person has the right to “have the assistance of council for his defense” Why did the Supreme Court rule in Betts v. Brady that this right only applied in ‘special circumstances’?
3. Are police required to read a citizen his or her Miranda rights before any type police interrogation, or only for instances of arrest?
4. How do we make sure police do not physiologically abuse people in interrogation if the interrogation is held in secrecy?
5. Do these rights apply to minors as equally as they do adults?
Clarification Questions:
1. What were the “special circumstances” that Gideon had not suffered from in order to entitle him to have the right to a lawyer?
2. What is an appellate docket?
Thoughtful Questions:
1. Is there a legitimate reason for the Supreme Court to announce its decisions orally?
2. Would Gideon have been entitle to a lawyer is his case was heard in a state court rather than the Supreme Court?
3. Why does Justice Brandeis think that “In most matters it’s more important to that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right?” Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional?
4. Does the Supreme Court only use the Bill of Rights when it is favorable?
5. Why does an interrogation take place in privacy? Doesn’t this provide room for error? How does this make the system corrupt?
6. If a subject is being questioned in a police dominated area without being read Miranda Rights, would it be considered an interrogation?
Clarification:
In Bettz vs. Brady was either self represented? If so why??
Does prison mail get priority over regular mail in the Supreme Court?
Thoughtful:
Was Gideon denied a public defender at time of original trial? If so why was judicial system allowed to let this happen?
When the case was transferred to the appellate docket, what significance does this have to Gideon?
How does the attitudes of federalism apply to this court case? At this point hadn’t it long outreached the point of a State decision?
Prior to Miranda v. Arizona, were police obligated to inform the accused of there fundamental rights? If so, what did the case change?
Do we adhere to the principles of Escobedo today?
Even if an accused is not arrested, are police obligated to inform them of there right to remain silent? Or does this only apply if they’re taking you to the slammer?
Why are forty copies of petitions usually required?
Why did the lower court ignore Gidgeon’s plea?
When defendants argue that their right to due process is violated, and the courts find this true, are they always granted re-trial?
If the law is not static then what’s the point of sticking to conservative values so fiercely?
Was there much controversy over Betts vs. Brady at the time, or was the veredict generally accepted?
Men like Gideon often slip through the cracks of our judicial system, is this a sign of a lack of equality and corruption within it?
What is this “fundamental fairness” that the Supreme Court claims a defendant must be in risk of losing to be provided a lawyer? Aren’t all defendants placed at a disadvantage if they do not have adequate representation?
Why should being appointed a lawyer by the Supreme Court be such an honor for a “poor” man?
If the Court can overrule their own rulings, does this give them more power or less?
Although Miranda was not told his proper rights when being questioned, he still was able to read the statement on top of the confession. Does this not still legally waive his rights to an attorney to accuse the police of not informing him of his rights?
1. Gideon was said to be passionate and almost irrational about his case. Doesn’t irrationality often come with passion? If he had a larger group, could he have generated a faction?
2. Is appointing any lawyer really better than not providing one? Which is worse – misrepresenting yourself on accident, or having your lawyer completely ruin your chance of success?
3. Should “narrow questions” be dealt with in courts? Are they too intertwined with belief or practice to produce any substantial results?
4. Should not having been read your rights really be grounds to void the whole claim? Are these measures too extreme? Too unnecessary?
5. Is the idea of incommunicado interrogation in contrast to compelling individuals to incriminate; is this political stance elitist?
How would the Supreme Court have responded to Gideon if he was without an attorney?
Did the Betts v. Brady case influence the Supreme Court in its way of judgement to the later cases? If so, how?
Did discrimination play a role in this case?
In what way would the case have changed if Gideon was mentally challenged?
What factors were essential in the overruling of Betts v. Brady? Would the timing of it also change its outcome?
1. If a person can petition all they want, is this fair and equal to the opposition?
2. Why didn’t Gideon get a lawyer? Did it help his argument?
3. So what are the standards for being “taken out of freedom of action in any significant way?”
4. Why were the Miranda rights created? Shouldn’t it be personal knowledge and judgement as to whether or not answers questions given by an officer? And if the circumstances say that one should speak the truth but does not want to wouldn’t that be a clear indication of guilt?
5. Is it right or just for the detectives or officers to take the accused into the interrogation room and psychologically wear them out to get confessions or information? Wouldn’t this be some sort of interference of our rights?
The first reading deals with the case of Clarence Earl Gideon, which specifically mentions the forma pauperis, or in the manner of a pauper. I find the fact that this exists is very interesting. I can’t make up my mind on if this is OK, for a few reasons. One one hand, this makes perfect sense. The poor (i’m using the word too, guys), illiterate, ignorant, young, and mentally ill are offered an easy way to appeal, without having to follow usual forms, correct technicalities, and pricing. On the other, what sets the standard for what is considered poor, illiterate, ignorant, young, or mentally ill? Could one argue that, in comparison to others, he was eligible for this program? Are there any drawbacks to this program? Is there any reason that a person capable of appealing without the forma pauperis would want to use a forma pauperis? Finally, why do people get to take an easier way out if they are held to the same legal standards for what constitutes a crime? Are these people held to the same legal standards as the rich, literate, enlightened, old, and mentally competent, or are they punished more harshly due to what some would consider setbacks? Is anything in government fair, or clear? Can anything in government and politics ever be fair or clear?
On the reading about the Miranda Rights, I wasn’t completely sure what level of interrogation was necessary. Little or no intensity of interrogation would lead to criminals going free too easily, while too much intensity would cause innocent people to admit to being guilty, just to get out of the intense interrogation. What is more important to a police officer, to be able to have someone be blamed for a crime, even if they didn’t do it, or to be able to let a seemingly innocent man go, even if there is a slight possibility of him or her being guilty?
Page 515-517 Question 1
Why did rule 53 allow an impovershered person to file only one copy of a petition instead of the forty petitions (required in case of error)? Why did the Supreme Court rule in manner that was and is clearly unconstitutional in Betts v. Brady and cases after? Why did the poor have to prove their special circumstances or rather why was a lawyer not appointed to them as stated in Sixth Amendment?
Page 518-519 Question 2
Why is the appointment of a lawyer to represent a poor man a great exposure? Do lawyers not flock to those who are having their cases presented in front of the Supreme Court? Why does the Supreme Court pay the costs of the lawyers transportation to and from Washington D.C. and is this not a waste of the tax-payers money?
Page 524-527 Question 3
Why do we need Supreme Court rulings to set precedent or rather should it not have been common knowledge or proper application of law enforcement to advise one who is arrested their 5th, 6th and 7th amendment rights?
1. When the state pays for a lawyer, does that not create a bias as to who the lawyer truly represents?
2. Why is it that courts can decide that certain amendments (due process 14th) for the right to counsel? (NDAA and jailing without trial/reason).
3. Do states have a responsibility to their citizens to stop allowing the federal government to take citizens on part of the NDAA indefinite detention clause (because of the 14th amendment [“… nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law?”])
4. If free internet becomes a right deemed “fundamental” by society (majority population) would that not then become a denial of the fourteenth amendment?
5. Is it “fair” or allowing “fair trial” if wealthier people can pay for a lawyer with connections, resources, experience, and power, while the poor are forced to either be represented by an appointed attorney or represent themselves? Wouldn’t a fairer system be allowing complete representation by the state/court who is hearing the case?
1. Is it arbitary rule if the Supreme Court makes a desicion then at another time changes its ruling, after new justices have been appointed?
2. If president can be ignored, how can Americans know that their rights will be upheld in court?
3. Since the Bill of Rights only limited Federal government, were the states allowed to make laws that were unconstitutional?
4. Citizens can no longer defend themselves in a court of law, is that due process?
5. How will a confession be used against the defendant in a court of law if he admitted to a crime before he was read his rights?
Five Questions:
Under what rights does Clarence Earl Gideon, as a prisoner, is allow to mail the Supreme court? Don’t prisoner have no rights?
Why is it that the Supreme Court announces its decisions orally? Why don’t other countries follow the same system?
If I’m not mistaken, Clarence Earl Gideon is not given a lawyer to defend his case. Why doesn’t the court allow him to have a lawyer? Is there any discrimination when mention that he is a poor man and deserves a laywer?
Justice Black’s words, “When Betts v Brady was decided, I never thought I’d live to see it overruled”, why is this case much of importance to Gideon V Wainwright?
In regards to knowing your rights when arrested, what are the consequences if any to the people interrogating you, do not give you your rights?
Clarification questions:
What is “ in forma pauperis”?
1) how do Miranda warnings make it easier for criminals and violators of the law to be released from custody?
2) does the sixth amendment make any distinction between capital and non-capital cases?
3) are there distinctions between the type of defendant, be it citizens, or undocumented persons, and the right to counsels?
4)In these times, it seems that police officers read offenders their Miranda rights at inappropriate times. For instance, if the offender is not paying attention. What constitutes the context in which a police officer can read the Miranda warning?
5) What are some of the issues that arise when courts use selective applications of the law?
Gideon and Miranda, while they are incredibly significant cases, have not completely fixed the problems they set to fix. Gideon for example, while it does show the functioning of the judiciary in overcoming stare decisis, does not fully equip the poor with the same options of defense that the rich have. Many lawyers who are beginning in the profession, or not very good, end up defending the poor in these cases regarding minor charges. Also, what does a poor person do if they want to sue as the Prosecution? These are not problems the court can solve. These may not even be problems the government can solve. However, the poor are still deprived of quality representation who is personally invested in their situation. How many poor people would have gone free if they had the representation Donald Trump hires?
Then there is the case of Ernesto Miranda, “Earnest” as his lawyer referred to him. Firstly, the Miranda warning sets an across the board procedure for all custodial situations, and all states. The former balancing test I believe would be much more effective, balancing the level of coercion exercised by the police and the competence of the detainee. This idea of balancing and weighing the interests is much more ideal than an across the board statement. An across the board statement allows for coercion to actually occur, although the results would be permissible, as the procedural precaution was followed. Since the issue of police coercion is a behavioral issue, it does not make sense to fix it with procedure. The states also have authority on their police forces, so because different states have different police problems, wouldn’t it be better and more respective of the 10th Amendment to leave this to the states? And finally, why do criminals, willingly confessing, deserve to be reminded of their rights? In what other cases does the government do this? Should they be required to remind people of their rights in every situation? Would the reminder even be effective?
Now however, post Miranda, in many cases the warning has not been effective. It has become just another part of the procedure, and due to its incorporation in the media, it has lost a lot of weight. Many people do not even understand the warning, especially if english is not their native language. Also, police may have to leave out confessions made before the Miranda warning even if they were voluntarily made. There are a lot of problems with the Miranda system, but it is still an important case in what it represents.
Could the clerk have rejected any submitted filings that does not comply with court rules?
Why did they want only one copy of petition from this beggared man and not forty copies?
Can people make many petitions to their rights fairly against constitutional laws?
Why is it that most cases on done on Mondays and not the other days?
Would it had been difficult if Gideon didn’t have an attorney in his case?
After finishing this reading and some time of reflections. I think of money, I think about the enormous value that money has. I think about the way the U.S. has evolved economically. I think about ALL the people living within the nation and how they have been impacted by the value/passion that the American system has for money. I think about money because money I believe in current time and probably in the past; Money was/is the main factor that has currently been influencing the creation of factions. One is the “unprivileged” middle, and upper class.
With these ideas in mind I think about the courts and the judges. And I think about the unbalanced and empty of justice environment. The court is a moment of (judgement) were CIVIL INDIVIDUALS play the supreme role of identifying human error. With their “power”, with their ‘professional opinion’, and with their knowledge to a remaining controversial constitution, judges apply the law.
Will the manner in which the court system works remain the same? Will there be a proper change were there is the non-existence of mainly racial and social discrimination”
I think about )Robert Dahl’s?) theory about how all men are selfish.