×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to Pennsylvania State University Altoona - Flashcards - cases, CRIMJ220, PSUA, and courts
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to Pennsylvania State University Altoona - Flashcards - cases, CRIMJ220, PSUA, and courts
Flashcards / Social Science / Criminology and Criminal Justice / CRIMJ 220 Exam Two: Right to Counsel Cases

CRIMJ 220 Exam Two: Right to Counsel Cases

CRIMJ 220 Exam Two: Right to Counsel Cases

Description

School: Pennsylvania State University Altoona
Department: Criminology and Criminal Justice
Course: Courts
Professor: Mary probst
Term: Spring 2019
Tags: cases, CRIMJ220, PSUA, and courts
Cost: 25
Name: CRIMJ 220 Exam Two: Right to Counsel Cases
Description: Exam two flashcard
Uploaded: 03/11/2019
18 Pages 29 Views 0 Unlocks
Reviews


Front
Back

Alabama v. Shelton (2002)

Indigent entitled to a court-appointed attorney, even if facing only a suspended jail term for a minor charge (non-felony criminal proceedings)

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)

Indigent defendants must be provided with attorneys when facing misdemeanor and petty charges that may result in incarceration

Sixth Amendment (1791)

A constitutional amendment designed to protect individuals accused of crimes. It includes the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a speedy and public trial.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Court ruled that state governments must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

Indigent defendants must be provided with attorneys when facing serious charges in federal court.

Betts v. Brady (1942)

Established that state governments did not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in a non-capital cases

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Extends to the defendant the right of counsel in all state and federal criminal trials regardless of their ability to pay. (Betts overruled)

Douglas v. California (1963)

Indigent defendants must be provided with attorneys for their first appeal

In re Gault (1967)

juveniles have the right to counsel, to confront and examine accusers, and to have adequate notice of charges when confinement is a possible punishment

Faretta v. California (1975)

Defendants have the right to self-representation.

Scott v. Illinois (1979)

If there is no possibility of confinement, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply (particularly if the guilty faces only paying a fine)

To show that ineffective assistance of counsel violated the right to counsel, defendants must prove that the attorney committed specific errors that affected the outcome of the case

Halbert v. Michigan (2005)

The failure of an inexperienced defense attorney to conduct a reasonable investigation of the defendant's troubled personal background constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Schriro v. Landrigan (2007)

During the penalty phase of a death penalty trial, the defendant refused to allow his attorney to present mitigating evidence about organic brain damage. The defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland.

Indiana v. Edwards (2008)

A mentally ill defendant who is nonetheless competent to stand trial is not necessarily competent to dispense with a lawyer and represent himself.

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010)

Failing to inform one's client that a plea carries a risk of deportation constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.

Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper(2012)

Defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offer from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused, and defendants have a right to competent advice from a lawyer on whether to accept or reject such an offer.

Luis v. United States (2016)

The pretrial freeze of a criminal defendant's legitimate assets- those untainted by any connection to alleged crimes- violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel since those funds must be available to a defendant to hire defense counsel of choice