Nowadays, choosing a lawyer, and finding how to defend one-self, is more and more essential, as the lawyers have the fate of the defendants in their hands. But what happens when the defendant is not satisfied with his lawyer, or when the lawyer does not do his job properly? Are lawyers and defendants always together, in the same boat? This is what an American journalist, Adam Liptak, exposes in an article, which was published in American newspaper "The New York Times", on Wednesday, 14th January 2009. "The New York Times" is one of the most prestigious American papers, nicknamed "the gray lady". Founded in 1851, it has become something of a reference in American press. People usually view the "New York Times" as liberal, left-wing press. Liptak, a legal journalist, lawyer, and professor of journalism, is in charge of all things related to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this article, entitled "Justices turn to rights of defendants", Liptak concentrates on three Supreme Court hearings.
[...] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out that the defendant cannot guess that he has make some kind an affirmative assertion” 14). As one can see, this rule is already quite difficult to appreciate for justices, so it should come as no surprise that people and, more importantly, the police forces have trouble in interpretating it. In the Montejo case, Montejo could not know that he had to confirm his acceptance of the lawyer he had been offered. This case had dreadful consequences because Montejo was later sentenced to death; who knows what could have happened if he had not written this letter? [...]
[...] But is it up to the lawyer or the client to define a defense? Does the lawyer have to do what the client says? This shows that a defender can turn against his lawyer, and these cases are difficult to rule for the Supreme Court. The role of the SC in these cases will require close scrutiny These three cases have gone up to the Supreme Court of the United States, because it is the last appellate jurisdiction in the United States. [...]
[...] This letter was thus considered admissible, and was used against Montejo at his trial and contributed to his being found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Justices should give their decision by June. In the second case discussed by the Supreme Court , Vermont v. Brillon, the Vermont Supreme Court had ruled that a three years delay to bring Michael Brillon to his trial was too much and breached his “constitutional right to a speedy trial” 27). But as the lawyers for Vermont pointed out, this delay was largely down to the inaction of his lawyer; a fact which counts against the state. [...]
[...] The sixth amendment states that all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . " Sometimes, there is too much time between the arrest and the trial, so that the defendant remains in prison for too long. But things are not always that simple: sometimes, like Brillon, the delay is caused by inaction of assigned counsel”. This “inactive counsel” was provided by the state of Vermont, which led the Supreme Court of the state to put the blame on the state. [...]
[...] Several justices are reluctant to second-guess the lawyer. The common point of these three cases is that they all deal with “what criminal defendants can expect from their lawyers” (l2). In what way can it be said that the role of the lawyer is a fundamental one in order to respect the defendant's rights in the best way possible and to ensure the defendant gets the best defense possible? If one wants to answer this question, one will have to examine the rights of the defendant once he has a lawyer. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
