|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Betts v. Brandy overruling in Johnson v. Zerbst that construed it to be required those indigents be afforded counsel as a necessary ingredient of a fair trial. Black used several pre-Betts cases, for example Powell v. Alabama, and Johnson v. Zerbst to show that Betts’s was incorrect the second it was handed out. Harland felt Betts was correct at its conception, but it lost its intrigue with time. The Betts ruling was that council was not necessary unless special circumstances made a lawyers aid necessary. States such as Florida did see circumstances in which an indigent, like Gideon, did not meet the special circumstances required. Although in almost all prior circumstances the special circumstances were deemed to exist and the council was awarded to the defendant. Harland felt that to continue a rule honored by the Supreme Court, only with hearsay was a disservice to the federal system, no fair trials without the defendant getting the right to an attorney. An untrained, uneducated person trying to represent themselves puts them in an uncomfortable situation. The side with a lawyer versus the side without has an unfair clear advantage.
Approximate Word count = 702
Approximate Pages = 2.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|