cases where the courts didn't allow a lawyer

Why did the President’s lawyers lose the Supreme Court again?

The President’s lawyers objected to the fact that Judge Brann had not allowed them to amend their complaint after oral arguments were finished. They lost again, this time at the hands of a panel of three conservative judges from the Third District Court of Appeals.

Why do all these cases fall apart in court?

The short version of why all these seemingly rock solid cases fall apart in the courtroom is because they’re lying to you but not the judge.

Do lawyers have the affidavits they think warrant their suit?

But even if the evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, one assumes that the lawyers do have the affidavits, or lists of incidents that they think warrant their suit. My question: have any of the judges reviewed this information or not?

Does the court look at the evidence?

In other cases where there is standing to bring a case to court the evidence is looked at. Apparently so far it’s been found wanting. I think there might have been 2 cases (out of more than 50 at this point) where some discrepancies were found, but that’s it. That “evidence” seems to be more for public consumption than the courts.

What happened in the Gideon v. Wainwright case?

Decision: In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.

Why was Gideon denied a lawyer?

At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon's request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

What type of case is Gideon v. Wainwright?

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court established that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right for criminal defendants who cannot pay for their own lawyers to have the state appoint attorneys on their behalf.

Why is the Gideon v. Wainwright case important?

Wainwright is responsible for changing the criminal justice system by granting criminal defendants the right to an attorney, even if they can't afford one on their own.

What happened in the Mapp v Ohio case?

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.

Why was the Betts case overruled?

Justice Black dissented, arguing that denial of counsel based on financial stability makes it so that those in poverty have an increased chance of conviction, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This decision was overruled in 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright.

What happened in Argersinger v Hamlin?

Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was the decision in Miranda v Arizona?

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Miranda v.

When was Miranda vs Arizona?

June 13, 1966Miranda v. Arizona / Date decidedYet it did not exist until June 13, 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court first announced it as a principle of American law in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona. The case came out of Phoenix, Arizona, and was decided by the nation's highest Court in 1966.

Why is Engel v Vitale important?

Engel v. Vitale is one of the required Supreme Court cases for AP U.S. Government and Politics. This case resulted in the landmark decision that established that it was unconstitutional for public schools to lead students in prayer.

How are the Gideon and the Miranda cases related?

In debating the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the Supreme Court decided that people can't be denied their right to a lawyer (as stated in the Sixth Amendment) just because they can't afford one. The court referenced the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that everyone must be treated equally under the law.

Why was Miranda v Arizona important?

Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Which case won the honor for the worst Supreme Court decision in American history?

Using the second and third prongs, I think the case that wins the “honor” for the worst active Supreme Court decision in American history is Helvering v. Davis (1937). Helvering upheld the constitutionality of Social Security on the basis that Congress has a general power to spend on whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.

Which case eviscerated the privileges or immunity clause of the 14th amendment?

Slaughter-House Cases / United States v. Cruikshank (1873 / 1875) Rulings: Eviscerated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, preventing the Amendment from broadly protecting individual rights to this day. Chae Chan Ping v.

What is the significance of Carr's ruling?

Carr (1962) Ruling: Declared that a “ One Person, One Vote ” standard is essential to democracy, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't follow OPOV in elections for the Senate or the presidency; facilitated gerrymandering by requiring every state to redo its districts every census to comply with OPOV. Jones v.

Which case flipped the system from limiting the government to what is explicitly allowed to permitting anything that isn't?

Thus, Helvering is the central case that flipped the system from limiting the government to what is explicitly allowed to permitting anything that isn't explicitly banned — effectively ending federalism. Here are various runners-up, in approximately chronological order: Slaughter-House Cases / United States v.

Which amendment eviscerated the federal government?

This ruling completely upended the system of enumerated powers, in which Congress only had the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and eviscerated the Tenth Amendment that restricted the federal government to its defined roles.

Which ruling allowed Congress to create an independent counsel with the power to investigate and prosecute people independent of the President?

Olson (1988) Ruling: Allowed Congress to create an independent counsel with the power to investigate and prosecute people independent of the president, even though the president is vested with executive power, and prosecutions are purely executive powers. Kelo v.

Which amendment prevents citizens from suing their states?

Louisiana (1890) Ruling: Declared that the symbolic meaning of the 11th Amendment prevents citizens from suing their states, even though the text makes no such reference, and thus inadvertently damaged the 4th Amendment by foreclosing the most effective means of enforcing it. Home Building & Loan Association v.

Why do all these seemingly rock solid cases fall apart in the courtroom?

The short version of why all these seemingly rock solid cases fall apart in the courtroom is because they’re lying to you but not the judge.

Why did Texas not sue the SCOTUS?

The most recent slap-down by the SCotUS was because Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania/Michigan/Wisconsin/Georgia conduct elections, therefore, no basis to sue. So it didn’t matter what evidence did or didn’t exist, Texas couldn’t bring suit.

What does the clause "we are going to choose our electors via popular vote" mean?

The Trump lawyers have seized on this clause as meaning that state legislatures must specifically approve, via legislation, every detail of election procedure and every piece of guidance. A court yesterday, ruling on the merits of the case as requested by Trump, decided that interpretation was ridiculous and the clause simply means that state legislatures decide something to the effect of “We are going to choose our electors via popular vote.”

What happens if your signature doesn't match your signature in Georgia?

It used to be, in Georgia, if someone decided the signature on your ballot didn’t match your signature on file, they would just throw your ballot away. It’s turns out that this was happening disproportionately in certain neighborhoods and large numbers of ballots cast by young and minority voters were being discarded.

What happens if an election is unconstitutional?

Unconstitutional election rules render invalid the results from elections held under them; and

Is there a crackpot lawsuit?

None of the MAJOR lawsuits explicitly alleged fraud, but there are dozens of crackpot lawsuits

Do poll workers have to tell the judge it's not about fraud?

They go around doing press conferences alleging fraud or making outright accusations but when inside the courtroom, under oath, risking fines and being disbarred for bringing frivolous cases, they have to tell the judge it’s not about fraud, their poll workers were allowed to watch, they don’t have any evidence etc.

What can an attorney do to help you with judicial misconduct?

An experienced and well qualified malpractice attorney or criminal law attorney can help you determine whether or not you’re a victim of judicial misconduct. Additionally, an attorney can file an appeal on your behalf and help guide you through the process of getting your sentence or the entire case thrown out.

What happens if a judge doesn't recuse himself?

However, if a judge fails to recuse himself or herself from a case where proper grounds clearly existed for recusal, then there may be penalties levied against them.

What is a personal connection in a lawsuit?

Personal Connection to One of the Parties to the Case: For example, if the judge is a neighbor, best friend, or has another personal connection with someone on either side of a lawsuit, their impartiality would come into question. Thus, that judge should recuse themself from the case;

Why do judges recuse themselves?

The reason for recusal is simple, a judge has a duty of fairness when imparting justice and making judgements as they preside over a case. Thus, at the time a judge learns of their assignment to a case, the judge should review the facts of the case and decide whether there are any conflicts of interest regarding the case that would prevent them from being able to be impartial, ethical, and fair. Some examples of conflicts of interest where a judge should likely recuse themself from the case include:

What does it mean when a judge decides to recuse themselves from a case?

In summation, if a judge determines that there exists a conflict, such as those listed above, then the judge should decide whether they need to recuse themself from the case. In some jurisdictions, this decision is left up to another judge that makes the decision as to whether the presiding judge should be prohibited from hearing the case. Additionally, any party to a case, plaintiff or defendant, may make a motion to have the judge recuse themself from the case.

What is a recusal in court?

What is a Recusal? Recusal, also referred to as judicial disqualification, is the process of a judge stepping down from presiding over a particular case in which the judge may have a conflict of interest. Title 28 of the United States Code (the “Judicial Code”) provides standards for judicial disqualification or recusal.

What happens if a judge declines a recusal?

If a judge declines recusal even though they were aware that proper grounds existed , then there may be significant repercussions. First, the result of the case can be reviewed by an appellate court, and an entirely new trial may be ordered. This means that the judge’s decision regarding a criminal conviction or monetary award may be reversed or set aside.

What was Robert Richards Jr.'s ruling in Richards v. Thurston?

refused to cut his hair in compliance with his school’s dress code and was expelled. He sued his school and the court ruled in his favor declaring that “freedom to wear one’s hair at a certain length or to wear a beard is constitutionally protected, even though it expresses nothing but individual taste” that “compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance” does not “seem a justifiable part of the educational process.”

Which court case upheld the school's drug testing policy?

Joy v. Penn-Harris-Madison Sch. Corp. (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 2000): The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s policy requiring students interested in participating in extracurricular activities and student drivers to undergo random drug testing. However, the court made clear in extensive discussion that it believed the drug testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment. It felt bound to uphold the policy only because of the prior Todd case on similar facts in the same court.

Why was Beussink v Woodland suspended?

(Eastern District of Missouri, 1998): A high school student was suspended for creating a personal web site on his own computer where he used vulgar language to attack his teachers and school officials. The court ruled that school officials had violated the student’s First Amendment Rights because his speech had not caused a substantial disruption to the school environment.

What was the reason for Davenport v. Randolph County Board of Education?

Randolph County Board of Education (Eleventh Circuit, 1984): The court upheld school’s grooming regulations as a “reasonable means of furthering the school board’s undeniable interest in teaching hygiene, instilling discipline, asserting authority and compelling uniformity.”

Why did Van Wert City Board of Education ban t-shirts?

Van Wert City Board of Education (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000): A high school was allowed to ban t-shirts depicting Marilyn Manson because the court asserted that the school was right in prohibiting clothing that promoted “values that are so patently contrary to the school’s educational mission.”.

What happened in Serafin v. School of Excellence in Education?

School of Excellence in Education (Fifth Circuit, 2007): Jessica Serafin, a high school senior, was hit with a paddle without her consent and sustained a wrist injury due to her attempt to block the paddle. She sued her school for violation of due process rights, but the court found in favor of the school.

Why were Scoville vs Board of Education of Joliet Township?

The court condemned the school’s decision as a violation of the students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

What court did Judge Russell appeal to?

The Trump campaign appealed Judge Russell’s decision to the Nevada Supreme Court, which upheld his ruling and said he had applied the proper “burden of proof”. It noted that the District Court had “considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law”.

Who was the judge in the Nevada lawsuit?

The lawsuit asked Judge Todd Russell to either pledge the existing presidential electors to Mr Trump instead of Mr Biden, or just annul Nevada’s result altogether.

Why did the campaign want to stop Pennsylvania from certifying its results?

The campaign sought to stop Pennsylvania from certifying its results, arguing its voters’ “equal protection” rights under the Constitution had been violated (i.e. that Pennsylvania had treated Trump voters differently to Biden voters).

What would happen if Trump didn't like Wisconsin?

In essence, if Mr Trump did not like the rules governing Wisconsin’s election, he could have gone to court long before anyone voted under those rules. Instead, he waited until it was clear he’d lost to Joe Biden, and until the legal relief he sought would retroactively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

What would happen if Trump didn't like Wisconsin's election rules?

In essence, if Mr Trump did not like the rules governing Wisconsin’s election, he could have gone to court long before anyone voted under those rules.

Who are the affiants in the Trump case?

A few of the affiants, most notably Jessy Jacob and Melissa Carone, have since featured in public hearings held by Mr Trump’s lawyers, who say their testimony is convincing proof that fraud occurred.

Does the President's explanation for his record in court hold up under scrutiny?

The President’s explanation for his record in court does not hold up under scrutiny. There are certainly isolated cases where judges did not consider the merits of the Trump campaign’s arguments. Specifically, he can point to the US Supreme Court, and that last decision I mentioned from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Facts

Issue

Advantages

Effects

Impact

Status

Synopsis

Significance

• The Supreme Court's decision in Preston v. Ferrer could have a large impact on the enforceability of arbitration agreements and on the States' ability to investigate contractual arrangement. Should the Court find for Ferrer, it will undermine its holding in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, because it will allow states to police arbitration agreem...

See more on law.cornell.edu