Right to Counsel Research

The counsel right is a constituent of the reason for a fair trial. Not all countries have accepted the right to counsel. In the United States, it is provided in the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. The right to counsel has evolved over the years to meet the demands of changing criminal justice (Guggenheim, 2011). It all began with the struggle of" liberty" over" tyranny" that was central to the founding of United States. Later the court started to take a more categorical approach to the right of counsel as it applied to federal criminal prosecutions. In Johnson v. Zerbst, the court refused to enforce a case but held that the federal government has the role in providing counsel to any defendant facing criminal charges. The court decides later to extend the categorical rule established in Johnson to state criminal proceedings.

In around thirty years after Powell, the court moved from a fact-specific and flexible approach to a categorical approach, eventually establishing the specific right to court-appointed counsel in any severe case. Later cases refined and restricted to appointed counsel in no felony prosecutions. Later in 2010, the Supreme Court addressed these changes, and it held that when a person is charged with a crime that carries the potential consequence of deportation her duty has the duty to advice about such a consequence. In the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, the defendant was charged with a felony, transporting a significant amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer and was entitled to counsel as a matter of federal constitutional law (Guggenheim, 2011). If Padilla would have been charged with possession of marijuana his right to counsel by the federal government would have been undecided on whether or not the judge had the intention of sentencing him to jail.

One witness reported that Clarence Gideon left the pool holding wine bottle and pockets with many coins and then entered a cab. Gideon could not afford a lawyer, and he showed up in a court in Florida and asked the court to appoint him counsel. The court refused to state that counsel was reserved for capital offenses (Adjusters and Insurance Counsel in the United States, 2012). He was then jailed for five years. The jury later acquitted Gideon after he later filed a handwritten petition in Supreme Court. Fahle chose to file a motion to withdraw as counsel and for a show cause hearing to consider sanction against Low. Fahle decayed that by contacting respondent while Fahle represented respondent, Low violated Mo. Rule of professional conduct (1995) which prohibits a "lawyer in representing a client" from communicating about what is being represented with the party that is represented by another lawyer without the knowledge of that lawyer" Low later filed a motion to strike Fahle's motion.

The district then granted Fahle's to withdraw and granted the continuation so that the respondent could find new representation. Respondent retained a local attorney for the trial. This was followed by the restriction of this low, to come to any contact with the respondent without getting the permission from Falhe Respondent decided to appeal, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction. F. d 924 (2005). The Court argued and felt that the court at district level had misinterpreted the law that prohibited low's conduct in this case and in the separate issue on which the District Court had based its denial of his admission motions. The District Court's denials of these motions were therefore erroneous and violated respondent's Sixth Amendment right to paid counsel of his choosing (Guggenheim, 2011). doi:10. ssrn. Laforge, J. United States Energy Independence-A Game-Changer.

Being Right or Making Money, 179-215.