Due+Process+and+Rights+of+the+Accused

Due Process and the Rights of the Accused Gideon v. Wainwright 1963

Background:Gideon was charged with breaking and entering, and he said that he needed to be given a lawyer because he could not pay for one. The court said that they only gave attorneys to indigents in capital cases.

Question: Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Precedent: Overruled Betts v. Brady saying that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court appointed attorney. They said that the Sixth Amendment said that the right to an attorney was a fundamental right.

Miranda v. Arizona __**A MUST!!!!**__

Question: Does it violate the Fifth Amendment for the police to interrogate someone without informing them of their rights?

Precedent: The court decided that the police could not use confessions that they obtained while interrogating someone if they had not told them their rights. This established the well-known Miranda rights where whenever someone is arrested they are told their rights like the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Mapp v. Ohio In this case the they talked about the fourth amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from the use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The lower courts found her guilty but the Supreme court reversed the decision.

Gideon v. Wainwright The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of Florida reversed. The court stated that the no one according to any standard does not have to face his or her accusers in any court.

Miranda v. Arizona The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This case really has a big effect on the phrase you have the right to remain silent.