4766 Shares

Question regarding American law history?

Question regarding American law history? Topic: Case stated meaning
June 27, 2019 / By Clarity
Question: I am reading about the supreme court case Gideon v. Wainwright ruled on by the Warren court. Wikipedia says states are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. My question is, does this mean most criminals pre-1962 would do their best to represent themselves in court or what was it like?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Question regarding American law history?

Beatrix Beatrix | 5 days ago
If you read the case and articles about it, you'll see that Gideon himself just had to continue without representation. Prior existed but the "unfair trial" rule, which meant only that the government couldn't have a shocking departure from fair procedure. You had no guaranteed representation for most state criminal trials.
👍 238 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Question regarding American law history? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Case stated meaning


Beatrix Originally Answered: American history question?
This actually goes back to President Andrew Johnson. Congress wanted to get rid of President Andrew Johnson. To do this, they passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867. This was just a way to impeach him. The Tenure of Office Act, March 3, 1867, enacted over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, denied the President of the United States the power to remove from office anyone who had been appointed by a past President without the advice and consent of the United States Senate, unless the Senate approved the removal during the next full session of Congress.

Adena Adena
Yes. Before that if you couldn't afford a lawyer you had to stumble through trying to defend yourself. There's no telling how many innocent people were convicted just because they didn't know they were allowed to object or how to cross examine the police officer that arrested them.
👍 100 | 👎 1

Tel Tel
Those criminals with a lot of money hired the best lawyers. Those with no money just went to jail.
👍 96 | 👎 -3

Tel Originally Answered: Early American History question?
Brits and natives were competitors; French and natives were partners. The Brits were competitors, in the sense that they intended large-scale settlement, and hence competed with the natives for land. Natives did not quite know how to deal with this, as they weren't familiar with large-scale war. Soon outnumbered by Brits, they responded with their version of war against them - hit and run attacks on isolated farms, which the Brits interpretted as 'massacres.' The French were partners with the natives, in the fur trade. They did not intend large-scale settlement, just enough to maintain trading posts. (eg, only 6,000 French settled Quebec, at time of Am. Revolution, 70,000 in Quebec - 1% of today's population - vs.1.5 million people in the 13 colonies). Intermarriage with natives was very common. In warfare vs. Brits, French and natives put together best of their tactics (esp. Indian concepts of using camouflage, crawling low to avoid artillery), to mount a credible defence for a couple of centuries.

If you have your own answer to the question case stated meaning, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.