Class History 408 Dr. Alison Parker
Abstract- The conclusion of my paper is given the complexities of the law and obstacles in the trial process, the Supreme Court correctly upheld the right for United States citizens to have an attorney for their defense or to be provided one if they cannot afford one. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Supreme Court changed precedent and supported the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The Supreme Court mandated in the Gideon case an attorney must be provided for any indigent defendant, who asks for one, in all state and federal felony cases. The Court’s ruling in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) made it a requirement that any defendant who wishes to have an attorney present during questioning may do so. The Supreme Court found that the denial by police of Danny Escobedo’s request to speak to his lawyer during interrogation constituted a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The ruling of Miranda v Arizona (1966) finalized suspects rights as provided by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Miranda ruling enumerated an individuals rights during the judicial process including the right to an attorney. Dickerson v. United States (2000) upheld the constitutional protections set forth in Miranda. The case of Dickerson v. United States directly challenged the Miranda ruling but the Supreme Court justices upheld Miranda refusing to change precedent. The importance of Miranda and the cases related to it is that they provide the basic Constitutional protections of every American citizen facing felony charges which can carry significant implications.
This is the third place winner in the 2017 FODL Undergraduate Student Writing Contest.