TAILIEUCHUNG - Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 8 P8

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 8 P8 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 58 POWELL V. ALABAMA In a 7-2 decision delivered on November 7 1932 the Court reversed all seven convictions. Justice george Sutherland writing for the majority began the opinion by recounting the procedural history of the case and reciting the paltry and sometimes inaccurate record of the case. Sutherland noted that the record indicated that the defendants had been represented by counsel at the arraignment But no counsel having been employed . the record does not disclose when or under what circumstances an appointment of counsel was made or who was appointed. Sutherland also referred to the mob surrounding the defendants. Sutherland wrote that it does not appear that the defendants were seriously threatened with . mob violence but it does appear that the attitude of the community was one of great hostility. Although the intimidating atmosphere played a part in the opinion the Supreme Court was more concerned with the procedures employed by the trial court. Judge Hawkins had appointed the entire bar of Scottsboro to represent the defendants but he did not require the attorneys to accept the case. Sutherland quoted the colloquy between Hawkins and Roddy that occurred just before the trial which revealed that no attorney was prepared to take the case. Nevertheless Hawkins allowed the trials to go forward and in this casual fashion Sutherland lamented the matter of counsel in a capital case was disposed of. Sutherland began the Court s legal analysis by declaring that although the defendants may have appeared guilty they were nonetheless presumed to be innocent. Sutherland then proceeded to frame the issue in the case as whether the defendants were denied the assistance of counsel and if so whether such a denial was an infringement of their rights under the fourteenth amendment to the . Constitution the amendment that makes due process requirements applicable to the states. Sutherland concluded that states were obliged under the Constitution to provide the right .

Đã phát hiện trình chặn quảng cáo AdBlock
Trang web này phụ thuộc vào doanh thu từ số lần hiển thị quảng cáo để tồn tại. Vui lòng tắt trình chặn quảng cáo của bạn hoặc tạm dừng tính năng chặn quảng cáo cho trang web này.