I Will Provide You An Attachment Of What They Should Include

I Will Provide You An Attachment Of What They Should Include Look Li

I will provide you an attachment of what they should include / look like. Please use bullet points, double spaced, in 12-inch font, Times New Roman. You need:

  • Facts of the case
  • Procedural history
  • Law (you can quote the direct law like amendments 4, 2, 5, 14, etc.)
  • Legal question
  • Holding and vote (yes or no with the voting like 7-3, for example)
  • Reasoning
  • Concurring opinions with judge names
  • Dissenting opinions with judge names

Here is a list of the case briefs: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.; United States v. Wade, 388 U.S.; Gideon v. Wainwright, 572 U.S.).

Paper For Above instruction

Barker v. Wingo (407 U.S.)

Facts of the case: The defendant, Earl Barker, was charged with a crime, but his right to a speedy trial was allegedly violated, leading him to petition to dismiss based on this violation.

Procedural history: Barker challenged his conviction in the state courts, arguing that the delay between his arrest and trial violated the Sixth Amendment. The lower courts partially upheld his claim, but the case eventually reached the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.

Law: Sixth Amendment – right to a speedy trial (Code: Amendment VI). The Court also considered factors established in prior case law regarding speedy trial claims.

Legal question: What constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment?

Holding and vote: The Supreme Court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. The vote was 7-2.

Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is not measured by a fixed time but by a balancing test considering the length of delay, the reason for delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. The Court declined to specify a strict timeline, advocating for a case-by-case approach.

Concurring opinions: Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell concurred in part, emphasizing the importance of balancing factors rather than adhering to a rigid timetable.

Dissenting opinions: Justice Harlan and Justice White dissented, arguing that the Court’s test was too flexible and could undermine the Sixth Amendment’s protections.

United States v. Wade (388 U.S.)

Facts of the case: Wade was subjected to a police lineup, and he later contested the lineup’s use as a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and fair procedures.

Procedural history: Wade filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the lineup, which was denied, leading to his conviction. Wade challenged the procedure on appeal, culminating in this Supreme Court review.

Law: Sixth Amendment – right to counsel during critical stages of criminal proceedings (Code: Amendment VI).

Legal question: Does a police lineup conducted without the presence of counsel violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights?

Holding and vote: The Supreme Court held that the lineup without counsel present violated Wade’s Sixth Amendment rights. The vote was 7-2.

Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the lineup is a critical stage of prosecution, where accused persons are entitled to assistance of counsel to ensure procedural fairness and prevent misidentification.

Concurring opinions: Justice Brennan and Justice Stewart agreed, stressing the importance of counsel in lineup procedures.

Dissenting opinions: Justice Black and Justice Douglas dissented, arguing that the lineup process was a routine police procedure not necessarily requiring counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright (572 U.S.)

Facts of the case: Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida but was denied a court-appointed lawyer because the law only provided counsel for capital cases.

Procedural history: Gideon requested counsel, which was denied, and he was convicted. He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated, leading to this Supreme Court decision.

Law: Sixth Amendment – right to counsel in criminal prosecutions (Code: Amendment VI); incorporated via the 14th Amendment.

Legal question: Does the Sixth Amendment require states to appoint counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney in all criminal cases?

Holding and vote: The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to counsel is fundamental, and states are required to provide an attorney to indigent defendants. The vote was 9-0.

Reasoning: Justice Black emphasized that the right to counsel is essential for a fair trial and is fundamental to due process. Overturning Betts v. Brady, the Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Concurring opinions: Justice Douglas signed onto the majority, stressing the importance of fairness and justice in the legal process.

Dissenting opinions: None, as the decision was unanimous.

References

  • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
  • United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
  • Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
  • Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
  • McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).
  • Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
  • Criminal procedure and Sixth Amendment rights, National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/criminal-procedure-and-sixth-amendment-rights
  • LegalInfoInstitute – Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu

Related Assignments