Podcast appearances and mentions of Gideon V Wainwright

In honor of Constitution Day on September 14, In the Balance is releasing an early episode on the topic of Gideon v. Wainwright, a federal supreme court decision celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Host: Marissa GaalGuest: Chief Justice Susan Larson Christensen, Iowa Supreme CourtMusic from The Epic 2 by Rafael KruxLink: https://filmmusic.io/song/5384-the-epic-2-License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

In this week's episode of Let's Get Civical, Lizzie and Arden examine the landmark Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright! Join them as they look at the facts of the case, what the court decided, and how this all could have been avoided if anyone actually read the 6th amendment!  Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @letsgetcivical, @lizzie_the_rock_stewart, and @ardenjulianna. Or visit us at letsgetcivical.com for all the exciting updates! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

60 years ago, Clarence Gideon changed the legal landscape of America forever. Thanks to his self-written petition to the Supreme Court, it was finally recognized at the federal level that any person charged with a felony who cannot afford to hire was entitled to one under the 6th Amendment. Soon, that right would be extended to a person facing any possibility of confinement, and thus, our modern understanding of Public Defense was born.   On today's episode, Hunter spoke with to members of the Bronx defenders to reflect on the legacy of Gideon. Justine Olderman, Executive Director, and Wesley Caines, Chief of Staff, are part of the team at the Bronx Defenders trying to take the lessons from the past to drive new innovations in Public Defense. From the perspective of the attorneys and the formerly incarcerated, today's episode attempts to look at the strategic end state Public Defense hopes to achieve and the what it will take to achieve it.   Guest: Justine Olderman, Executive Director, Bronx Defenders Wesley Caines, Chief of Staff, Bronx Defenders     Resource Bronx Defenders https://www.bronxdefenders.org/staff/justine-olderman/ Follow Wesley on Twitter https://twitter.com/bm_mansamusa Follow Justine on Twitter https://twitter.com/jolderma Inquest Series on Public Defense https://inquest.org/tag/public-defenders/     Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com    

Episode 89 - Gideon v. Wainwright

*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required. Audio of the 1963 opinion of the Court in Gideon v. Wainwright.   Citations are omitted from this SCOTUS reading to provide a better listening experience. Read the entire opinion at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155    Music by Epidemic Sound  

McKinley discusses the wrongful conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon and the Supreme Court Case Gideon v. Wainwright. Sources: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetailpre1989.aspx?caseid=113 https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/better-by-the-dozen-bringing-back-the-twelve-person-civil-jury/

Like a fine wine, our podcast audio quality gets better with time. Stick with us!In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of burglary. Facing five years in prison if found guilty, Gideon was unable to afford legal counsel, and the court refused to provide him a lawyer. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. So Gideon grabbed a pencil and some prison stationery and wrote a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court...Music By @freebeats.io

In this episode, I examine the case that extended the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to state courts: Gideon v. Wainwright. Enjoy!

Today's guest is Stephen Bright, one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the United States. Prof. Bright teaches at Yale Law School and Georgetown Law, but has spent most of his life working as an advocate for poor people accused of serious crimes. During his decades in charge of the Southern Center For Human Rights, he argued multiple times in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and represented defendants some of the most difficult death penalty cases. Today we discuss the status of the right to a lawyer in the United States. Constitutionally, everyone is guaranteed an adequate defense, but in practice, the amount of representation one gets is based on the amount of money one can spend, and public defenders offices vary wildly across the country. Nobody is better familiar with the situation than Prof. Bright, whose writings include:Counsel for the Poor: The Death Penalty Not for the Worst Crime But for the Worst Lawyer (1994)Fifty Years of Defiance and Resistance After Gideon v. Wainwright (2013) (w/ Sia Sanneh)Prof. Bright has produced an entire 40-part online course on issues of race and class as they apply to capital punishment, which is available for free on YouTube:Capital Punishment: Race, Poverty, and DisadvantageMore of his work defending capital cases can be seen in the 2005 documentary film Fighting For Life In The Death Belt, which can be viewed free online. His lecture to Stanford law students on the ethical responsibilities of lawyers can be viewed here. 

The 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright enforced the right for legal counsel during a trial and helped form the basis of our legal system today. Sources https://www.landmarkcases.org/cases/gideon-v-wainwright https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/Law-Library/Historical-Documents-Rare-Books/Gideon-v.-Wainwright https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright https://www.britannica.com/event/Gideon-v-Wainwright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U_mpTQnKVI&t=224s --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesupremecourttimes/support

Heute gehen wir bei der Suche nach einem ausländischen Urteil wieder nach Amerika, um die Miranda Formel aus einer vorherigen Folge zu vervollständigen.Gebt uns gerne auf @kurzerklaert und @bastislaw Feedback.  Abonniert uns gerne auf Instagram und schreibt uns, wie ihr die Folgen findet oder ob ihr Verbesserungsvorschläge habt.NEU: Über eure Unterstützung freuen wir uns sehr:https://www.paypal.me/kurzerklaerthttps://www.patreon.com/kurzerklaertWir freuen uns, wenn ihr den Podcast bei Apple Podcasts rezensiert oder bewertet.Außerdem freuen wir uns immer, wenn ihr euren Freund*Innen, Kolleg*Innen oder Mitstudierenden von uns erzählt.Viel Spaß beim Anhören.     Support the show (https://www.paypal.me/kurzerklaert)

A plea from a man who was wrongfully convicted made its way to the Supreme Court, resulting in a landmark ruling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this riveting interview, TLC alum and faculty member Max Mitchell draws upon his extensive experience representing Missouri’s most vulnerable criminal defendants to passionately and earnestly identify the good, the bad, and the ugly in the criminal justice system. As a district public defender in Sedalia, Missouri, Max represents individuals with charges ranging from DWI to first-degree murder. This role has given him an inside look at the destructive effects that limited funding, insufficient resources, and unjust sentencing practices can have on the lives of individuals facing criminal charges in Missouri.  The interview begins with a brief discussion on Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case which upheld a defendant’s right to effective counsel at every stage of litigation. Max explains that this ruling is not always applied as intended, leading to less-than-ideal outcomes for criminal defendants, who may or may not be guilty.  To illustrate this assertion, Max cites instances of overburdened public defenders with dozens of active cases under their belts, police failing to inform defendants of their rights to a lawyer during the interrogation stage, and courts failing to prioritize the distribution of public defender resources to those with the most dire financial needs. He also shines a light on other, more overarching flaws in the criminal justice system, including the practice of keeping innocent people in jail when they can’t pay bond, biases from judges and prosecutors, and prosecution being based on the defendant’s history rather than the crime itself.  It is our hope that introducing these issues to our listeners will inspire them to begin thinking about how they can solve them. For more information on how you can gain the skills to make lasting change in the system, we invite you to browse our selection of TLC courses

In this episode, our hosts look at the Westerosi criminal “justice” system to see exactly how badly it sucks. Here, Merry & Clint and SPECIAL GUEST LEARNED HAND and public defender Stanford Fraser ask: What evidentiary and due process issues arise from the Trials of Tyrion Lannister?The Episode also features:A discussion of what Tyrion’s guilty “verdict” means for Sansa Stark!Terrible New York accents for an extremely dubious reason!Stanford tells us how our constitutional due process rights work in actual practice!Details on which parts of the Westerosi criminal justice system are the most and least suboptimal!Everyone learns about hearsay and its exceptions so that from now on no one will ever get the actual legal definition of hearsay wrong for the rest of your lives!The Law of Parties!An explanation as to why trial by combat is so pervasive in the seven kingdomsOne of our hosts approvingly quotes Antonin Scalia! (LOL IT WAS MERRY)References & Supplemental Reading:-Clint’s Not Great Bob essay on the Trials of Tyrion Lannister. -Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). -How Americans Lost the Right to Counsel 5 Years After Gideon.-Wrong place at the wrong time, and the Law of Parties. -Stanford Fraser on twitter.Intro/Outro music courtesy Sid Luscious & The Pants.Support the show (https://www.WesterosBar.org)

In the first chapter, we emphasized the complexities of the legal system. With myriad codes, decisions, procedures, guidelines, and jurisdictions, hiring a lawyer makes a lot of sense if a person faces any type of legal challenge. When nonexperts respond to the legal system without counsel, they can lose their rights or expose themselves to further problems.  Even experienced attorneys hire lawyers when they anticipate that they may face problems from the legal system. Since the legal system is so broad, attorneys tend to specialize in one or more practice areas. An attorney that specializes in taxation, for example, would likely know a great deal about the tax code and how to create structures that minimize liability. Yet a tax lawyer may not know much about federal criminal procedure. Likewise, a lawyer that works exclusively on sentencing matters in federal criminal court may not be the best attorney to hire if that person wants to negotiate a severance agreement with an employer. With the law, as with any profession, it’s crucial to hire experts.   Hiring Specialists: If someone learns that a representative of law enforcement is asking questions, that is a good sign that an investigation is underway. And it’s a good sign that the person needs a lawyer. The investigation may be civil, with questions from representatives of the SEC, the FTC, or state regulators. Since civil investigations frequently lead to criminal indictments, it’s crucial to get appropriate guidance at the soonest possible time. When the questions come from the FBI or DEA, the problem is more immediate. That’s an obvious sign that a criminal investigation has begun. In either case, whether questions are coming from civil or criminal investigators, the time is ripe to begin researching lawyers. As the cliché holds, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It may be normal to call a friend or acquaintance to ask for free legal advice if a person learns that government regulators are asking questions. That friend may be a business lawyer, divorce lawyer, or labor lawyer. Obviously, any licensed attorney knows more about the law than a layman. Yet if a person lacks subject-matter expertise—even if the person practices law in another area—consider asking for a recommendation for an expert rather than asking for legal advice about a case that could potentially lead to criminal charges. If a person has been charged with a crime, that criminal charge removes ambiguity. With any criminal charge, a person’s liberty, livelihood, and reputation will be at stake. Defendants know: The jurisdiction, The type of charge, and to some extent, The potential exposure. A person that faces a state charge for vehicular manslaughter would do well to hire a lawyer that specializes in criminal law, in the specific jurisdiction. On the other hand, a defendant that has been indicted for fraud in federal court requires a lawyer that specializes in white-collar criminal defense, with expertise in federal criminal proceedings and federal sentencing. Given available resources, take affirmative steps to choose the right lawyer, in the right jurisdiction, with the right expertise.   Bars and Jurisdictions: Each state has a professional association of lawyers that is known as the state bar.  The state bar is responsible for issuing licenses to qualified members and overseeing how they practice law in a specific jurisdiction. To become a licensed attorney in any given state, our understanding is that a person must: Graduate from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, Pass the state bar exam, and Have the appropriate moral character—as determined by the bar association—to represent others in a court of law. Besides requiring a lawyer to have a license from the state bar, courts may also require a lawyer to go through additional screening or training in order to practice in a specific jurisdiction. What is a jurisdiction? In the first chapter, we noted that the United States has many criminal justice systems. Each state has its own criminal code, and each state is its own jurisdiction. Different levels of trial courts resolve disputes, or find facts, in each state system. The states will have an intermediate appellate court that reviews trial court decisions. And each state will have a high court that reviews appellate court decisions. The federal government trumps state courts, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. Beneath the Supreme Court, our country has 13 separate circuit courts. The circuit courts are regional appellate courts, overseeing a specific portion of the 94 district courts spread across the entire country. In the 94 separate federal district-court jurisdictions, more than 800 federal judges preside over findings of fact. Several thousand judges (some appointed, some elected) preside over several hundred jurisdictions in state and federal courts across the country. A lawyer that specializes in one jurisdiction may or may not have expertise in another jurisdiction. For example, a lawyer that specializes in California state court may not be as familiar with federal sentencing law, which requires very specific knowledge. When hiring a lawyer, individuals should consider what level of expertise the prospective lawyer has in a specific jurisdiction, and in the domain that applies to the specific type of case.   Public Defenders: In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling known as Gideon v. Wainwright. With the Gideon case, the Court found that all people who have been charged with serious offenses have a Constitutional right to a lawyer. If a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the Court will appoint a licensed attorney at no charge to the defendant. Before appointing counsel to represent a defendant, the Court may require the defendant to submit a financial statement. After reviewing the defendant’s ability to pay, the court will make a ruling on whether the defendant qualifies for appointed counsel. Qualifying for appointed counsel does not necessarily mean that the defendant is utterly impoverished. It simply means that after reviewing the defendant’s finances, the Court agrees that the defendant does not have sufficient financial capacity to hire an attorney. The court will then turn to the public defender’s office, or the bar association to hire a lawyer that will represent the defendant. Regardless of whether the court pays for the lawyer, or the defendant pays for the lawyer, a licensed attorney has a fiduciary duty to represent the defendant. In other words, the lawyer has a legal and ethical responsibility to represent the defendant to the best of his or her ability. Many lawyers aspire to build careers as public defenders, suggesting that they place a high value on social justice and assisting people in need. Despite having to manage extensive caseloads, public defenders are often extremely effective advocates for their clients. They have access to an abundance of training and resources. Further, they frequently limit their representation to specific types of cases in specific jurisdictions. Although a defendant has a Constitutional right to counsel, the defendant does not have a right to his specific choice of counsel. Many times, defendants find fault with the lawyer because the lawyer isn’t available to answer every question, or to provide the support a person craves during a difficult time. When a court appoints an attorney to represent a defendant, the defendant should work to understand the role of the attorney, and to assist the attorney by striving to provide a narrative of what transpired. Defendants are wise to remember that an attorney will not have all of the facts. Instead, the attorney will have to come up to speed by reading information in the charging instrument, and learning more from evidence collected through the process. The defendant can help the attorney get more context, but it will take time for the defense attorney to understand the complexities of the full story. The attorney will assess evidence and the prosecution’s ability to prove a case, reviewing charges and the evidence. Meanwhile, the defendant has a responsibility to speak honestly, providing background, context, and any evidence that may exonerate or mitigate the charges. The more effectively a defendant can help an attorney understand what happened, the more a defendant empowers the attorney to build a defense. On the other hand, the defense attorney may not be in the best position to help the defendant understand implications of a conviction. For example, the defense attorney may not be able to speak with certainty about what happens after a sentencing hearing. If the defendant wants to know all the implications of a 60-month sentence, there will be factors that are outside a defense attorney’s scope of practice. A defense attorney may not be the best source of information to respond to such questions as: Where will I serve my sentence? What will the atmosphere be like in the prison where I serve time? What types of programs will be available in prison? What can I do before I go in to qualify for the best programs? How will the First Step Act influence my life in prison? What can I do live to productively in prison? How can I manage my business while I’m in prison? How will my day be structured while I serve time? What will happen with my financial affairs while I’m in prison? How will I rebuild my life after I’m released? What can I do to position myself for the highest level of liberty once I get out? Finding answers to those types of questions may help a defendant make a more informed decision when considering how to respond to a criminal charge.   Retaining Counsel: When retaining counsel, it’s important to think about a budget. Ordinarily, attorneys bill by the hour. The hourly rate will depend upon a lawyer’s experience, reputation, jurisdiction, and area of expertise. In some jurisdictions, lawyers may work for less than $200 per hour. In other jurisdictions, lawyers with specific expertise may charge more than $2,000 per hour, in accordance with market rates. In jurisdictions like New York City, Washington DC, or San Francisco, defendants should expect to pay higher rates than in more rural jurisdictions. After all, office space in those cities is much more expensive than in cities like Tuscaloosa, Gary, and Jackson. Whether a lawyer charges $200 per hour or $2,000 per hour, defendants should anticipate that hiring a lawyer will be a significant investment. The investment does not guarantee a victory in Court, or the outcome that a defendant wants. But it should guarantee the best possible representation, given the resources available to deal with facts and evidence of the case. When hiring counsel, consider the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. In order to provide “the best possible representation,” lawyers must review every piece of evidence that prosecutors will consider. If there are multiple defendants in a case, the lawyers may have to review evidence against all of the defendants. Lawyers enhance their value by reviewing case law, statutes, rules of procedure, and judicial decisions that may or may not have anything to do with the case at hand. Lawyers may need to hire investigators, expert witnesses, or they may need to depose potential witnesses. Defendants that hire counsel should expect lawyers to bill in accordance with their hourly rate for every minute they devote to the case. Those high hourly rates allow the lawyer to continue learning, or practicing, by staying current with relevant decisions—even though they’re not billing for that time. If more than one lawyer is working on a case, the defendant should expect to pay hourly rates for multiple lawyers. Before hiring counsel, defendants should consider their financial resources and be realistic about the length of time a lawyer will need to prepare. A defendant may have specific facts and know the origins of the case. Yet lawyers approach a case with a blank slate. They may offer a free consultation, but to truly mount a defense, they need to invest considerable amounts of time. Defendants should expect to pay for that time, which can lead to legal fees that are much higher than the defendant expected. Lawyers will have to sift through evidence. They may have to listen to telephone recordings that, cumulatively, last for dozens of hours. If the government confiscated computer files, there may be thousands of emails or text messages to read. Lawyers may need to interview witnesses, or review transcripts of what witnesses said in other proceedings. To prepare a case effectively, lawyers can easily devote hundreds of hours. If multiple lawyers are assigned to a case, the bill may show thousands of hours, depending on complexity. Without sufficient preparation, a lawyer may not be able to give an accurate assessment of the best possible outcome. They may not even be able to advise whether it makes sense to proceed through trial or pursue a plea agreement.   Conflicts and Retainer Agreements: In some cases, judges will not allow a lawyer to withdraw from a case after a lawyer signs on to represent a criminal defendant. For that reason, lawyers typically take a risk-averse approach when choosing which defendants to represent. They will not want to represent new clients that could potentially conflict with their representation of other clients. Lawyers may ask defendants to sign “retainer agreements” before they accept a defendant as a client. The retainer agreement should detail hourly rates for each person or position that may work on the case. Partners may work at one hourly rate, associate lawyers may work at other hourly rates, paralegals may work at other hourly rates, and investigators may work at other hourly rates. The retainer agreement may require the defendant to deposit a specific amount of money into the lawyer’s trust account. The defendant consummates the agreement by signing a contract and depositing funds into the lawyer’s trust account. The lawyer should keep detailed records, recording how much time each person on the lawyer’s team devotes to the case. At the end of the billing cycle, whether weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, the law firm should create a statement showing billable hours. The lawyer will transfer funds (from the retainer) out of his trust account into his business-operating account to get paid for those billable hours. Some lawyers require the defendant to replenish the trust account with more funds at the start of each month, as specified in the retainer agreement. The retainer agreement may also include language that allows the lawyer “to fire” the defendant. That means the lawyer may cite reasons why the lawyer does not want to work with the client further. Our team has worked with some lawyers that absolutely refuse to work with a client that hires outside consultants. Some defense attorneys do not want the client getting information from anywhere other than from the attorney. Yet, those same defense attorneys may not be available to respond to the defendant’s questions about what to expect.   Plea Agreements: All defendants have a constitutional right to plead not guilty and pursue the case in court. Scorched-earth defense strategies, however, can come at a high cost. With legal fees for trial that can easily rise to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the threat of more onerous sanctions for those found guilty after trial, the vast majority of defendants settle criminal charges with plea agreements. Prosecutors and defense attorneys may or may not be amenable to settling a case early. Sometimes, lawyers find it advantageous to push prosecutors to the limit in strategic acts of brinksmanship. If prosecutors believe that the defense team may be able to prevail, they may be more receptive to a favorable plea agreement. On the flip side, prosecutors may want to settle cases early in order to preserve prosecutorial resources. In the federal system, prosecutors resolve the vast majority of cases with plea agreements. In exchange for the defendant’s admission of guilt, prosecutors may make concessions. Those concessions may put limits on a defendant’s exposure to sanctions. Every case is different, and defendants should work closely with competent legal counsel when making decisions. Defendants should also do everything within their power to understand the system and all that follows after a criminal conviction. When a defendant educates himself on how the system operates, he qualifies himself to make decisions from a position of strength. Too many people that come into the criminal justice system fail to understand the opportunity costs that come with every decision, including the length of time that passes before a guilty plea. When hiring counsel, its crucial to be honest to save time and to help the attorney quarterback decisions. But hiring an attorney does not absolve the defendant from investing time and energy to learn more about: Strategies to prepare for sentencing, Doing the work to preparing for sentencing, Understanding sanctions that may follow sentencing, Preparing for a journey through the prison system, Preparing for the earliest possible release from prison, Understanding how to get best outcomes after prison In subsequent chapters, we will offer insight defendants may consider on those subjects. The next chapter will offer thoughts to consider for those who need to find a criminal defense lawyer. Thanks for listening to chapter 2 of our book: Prepare What defendants should know about the criminal justice system. Get the full book by visiting our websites at PrisonProfessors.com / White Collar Advice / or Resilient Courses. Call or text: 949-205-6056. Team@PrisonProfessors.com

"Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Gideon, and he blew a trumpet..." Judges 6:34 In part 2 of this 3-part series on the right to counsel, Jennifer tells the story of Clarence Earl Gideon, whose conviction for breaking and entering was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a groundbreaking opinion that would forever change the legal landscape in America.  FURTHER READING: Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27404.Gideon_s_Trumpet Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/#tab-opinion-1944169 CHECK OUT ADAM BALLINGER IN GRAVEYARD TALES PODCAST: https://www.graveyardpodcast.com/ https://twitter.com/GrveYrdPodcast https://www.facebook.com/GraveYardTalesPodcast/ MORE FROM THE TECHNOFUNKBOY: http://technofunkboy.com/ MORE FROM DESDYMONA HOWARD: https://desdymona.com/?fbclid=IwAR0H073_7OawFhOZFncFDRrh76F54TsGaP_F6--s8usu7MYzGbBD0eA90iE

Briefly discussing the impact of SCOTUS; Gideon v. Wainwright.

Right to counsel

Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer.  Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court?  (You bet it is.) We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census. Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's. Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.  What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today?  Listen and (sadly) find out. After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118.  Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct??  Listen and find out!  And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross. Check out the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney's arrest record, and Cohen v. California. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

The story of the woman who gave birth to the Public Defender system, for the U.S., in 1893. HISTORICAL REFERENCES: Books: Babcock, Barbara, Woman Lawyer: The Trials of Clara Foltz (2011). Drachman, Virginia, Sisters In Law: Women Lawyers In Modern American History (1998). Law Reviews: Schwartz, Mortimer, Brandt, Susan & Milrod, Patience, Clara Shortridge Foltz: Pioneer in the Law, 27 Hastings Law Review 545 (1976). Babcock, Barbara, Clara Shortridge Foltz:  Constitution-Maker, 66 Indiana Law Review 849 (1991) Newspapers: Mrs. Clara Foltz urges the appointment of a public defender, New York Daily Tribune (Jan. 25, 1897). A Bill for a Public Defender, New York Times  (Jan. 22, 1897). How Mrs. Clara Foltz Would Provide Counsel for Those Who Are Too Poor to Employ a Lawyer, Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Jan. 23, 1897). U.S. Supreme Court – rulings: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Garza v. Idaho, slip opinion, February 27, 2019 (Thomas / Gorsuch dissent, follows ruling).   GUEST VOICES: Clara Shortridge Foltz – Kristi Oulvey, host of Heartland Homicide podcast. “Colonel” Thaddeus Stonehill – Richard Jones, host of True Crime Historian podcast. California Constitution (womens employment equality quote) – Roseanne Stolz, host of Killafornia Dreaming podcast. New York Times (editorial quote) – Andy Wang, host of Inspired Money podcast. San Francisco Chronicle (editorial quote) – Jeremy Collins, host of Podcasts We Listen To – Facebook Group and Podcast. New York Tribune (editorial quote) – Ken Marsiglia, free lance voice artist. Judge, San Francisco - Jerry Kokich of New Old Time Radio Dramas MISCELLANEOUS: Exit Aphorism (voice) – Kit Caren of Whispered True Stories. Host Intro – Nina Innsted, the host of the Already Gone podcast. Exit Aphorism - Source: Foltz, Clara S., Wrong and Unnatural, New American Woman (December 1916), at p. 19 (quote reprinted in Clara Shortridge Foltz: Pioneer in the Law, 27 Hastings Law Review 545 (1976).   MUSIC: Kevin MacLeod  of Incompetech.com – Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses / by 3.0 At Rest The Curtain Rises I Knew A Guy Comfortable Life   SOUND EFFECTS: Freesound.org  girls cheering Eighties_synth beep u_chimes_short3 ukulele_lick   T-SHIRTS, MUGS, AND OTHER SWAG - NOW AVAILABLE! Just click here!   HEY!  CONTACT US:   E-Mail:  ForgottenNewsPodcast@gmail.com Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Forgotten-News-Podcast Twitter: @NewsForgotten @KitCaren @WhisperedTrue (kit caren)   HEY! CAN YOU HELP US?!   PLEASE HELP THE FORGOTTEN NEWS PODCAST TO COVER THE COSTS OF RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, AUDIO EQUIPMENT. AND PODCAST HOSTING FEES.   ANY DONATION - EVEN A DOLLAR - WOULD REALLY HELP US OUT! Just click on this PayPal link, to contribute. PAYPAL Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

Podcast for AP Gov. Talks about Miranda Rights, Gideon v. Wainwright, etc.

Landmark Cases tells the story of Clarence Earl Gideon, a petty thief who spent his time in jail studying the law. His case, Gideon v. Wainwright, established a right to counsel for all accused criminals Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that states must offer a defense attorney to all poor people accused of crimes. The decision transformed the concept of fair trials in America, but left major challenges to the justice system today.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) was the subject of December's Saturday Webinar. guest hosted by Dr. Jason Stevens of Ashland University. The case, which overturned a previous USSC case and forced states to provide legal counsel to defendants in criminal cases. Although a majority of states already required this, those that did not were required to do so, from this point forward. The panelists discussed not only the interesting background of the case, including Betts v. Brady (1942), but also the complex situation of determining the "special circumstances" mentioned in that decision that states had to somehow work through in each case. An interesting point brought up was that some 22 states filed amicus briefs in support of a single federal ruling, essentially asking the court to provide a single standard for them instead of the open-ended (and difficult) question left to them by the Betts decision. The broader discussion also looked at the Warren court in general, the concept of incorporation, and the original intent behind the ideas in the Bill Rights. Resources mentioned include... Reconstruction Amendment Debates Oral argument of the case Gideon's Trumpet Access the archives, including our YouTube recording and podcast, on the permanent program page here. The post Saturday Webinar: Gideon v. Wainwright appeared first on Teaching American History.

American citizens who don’t speak fluent English or are illiterate face incredible disadvantages within civil, family law, and criminal courtrooms. Also, in many states juries are populated with exclusively English speaking citizens, which potentially misrepresents the peer group. Because of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendants in criminal cases have access to interpreters if necessary, but not necessarily in family law or civil cases. What are we as lawyers doing to rectify this problem? Legal Talk Network producer Laurence Colletti interviews Judge James Jordan, Judge Christopher P. Yates, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and Justice Edward L. Chavez about language barriers in the United States courts at the 2015 American Bar Association (ABA) Annual Meeting. The judges discuss actions lawyers, ABA members, and law schools can take to change these access to justice issues for the better.

In its landmark 1963 decision Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court mandated the right to counsel in federal and state criminal proceedings. Fifty-one years after that unanimous decision, some question whether Gideon's promise has been fulfilled, as public defenders struggle against heavy caseloads, limited resources and low pay. On this episode of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Jonathan Rapping, founder of the Atlanta-based public defender training program Gideon's Promise, and Dawn Porter, director and producer of the documentary Gideon's Army. Together they discuss the daily rigors faced by public defenders in the south, their personal beliefs about unequal access to justice, and their ideas about how to better deliver on the promise of Gideon. Jonathan Rapping is the president and founder of Gideon's Promise, a training and support group for public defenders in the south aimed at creating greater access to justice for indigent defendants. He is also the director of the Honors Program in Criminal Justice at Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, where he teaches criminal law and criminal procedure. Rapping is the former director of public defender training programs in the District of Columbia, Georgia, and Louisiana. He is the recipient of the Lincoln Leadership Award from Kentucky's Department of Public Advocacy, the Sentencing Project Award from the National Association of Sentencing Advocates and Mitigation Specialists, and the Gideon's Promise Award from the Southern Center for Human Rights. Dawn Porter is a lawyer and the founder of Trilogy Films. She was the director and producer of the award-winning Gideon's Army, a documentary about public defenders associated with Gideon's Promise, which premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and aired on HBO Documentary Films. Prior to beginning her film and television career, Porter worked as an attorney at Baker and Hostetler and ABC Television Network. Among her many projects, she directed "Spies of Mississippi," a documentary on PBS about celebrity Chef Alexandra Guarnaschelli; produced "Serious Moonlight" starring Meg Ryan and Timothy Hutton; and produced "The Green," an independent feature starring Cheyenne Jackson (from 30 Rock) and Emmy-winning actress Julia Ormond. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

In 1963, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that state courts are required under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel to individuals charged in criminal cases who cannot afford their own attorney. To learn more about the constitutional, legal, political, and practical implications of this landmark decision, view this vibrant and insightful discussion between students and a panel of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. To find a more detailed program description, program objectives, time-coded program agenda, related national curriculum standards, pre-program learning activities, post-program learning activities, related web resources, and related video clips, click on the Program Materials link on the right side of this page.