It is significant because a qualified lawyer working in the best interest of his client could challenge the common illegalities through the power of knowledge and advocacy and ultimately could act as a fair trial guarantor and a human rights defender.
Full Answer
Legal representation is essential in certain aspects of life, especially when faced with a dilemma or when about to make huge personal or business decisions. Any state or country is governed by set of laws and statutes.
It's important to understand that adequate representation doesn't mean perfect representation. However, an incompetent or negligent lawyer can so poorly represent a client that the court is justified in overturning a guilty verdict based on the attorney's incompetence.
Having a lawyer to assist you is important to translate the details into actual information that you can understand and follow. When in doubt, always get legal assistance from the professionals. You will know the next step to solve your problems and avoid any mishaps along the way.
For writers, film directors, producers and actors, the depiction of criminal justice holds the promise of success. They can create masterpieces and establish lasting careers. The justice system abounds of memorable and iconic features: including courtroom decorum, formal dresses, legal speech and court manners.
Legal representation is essential in certain aspects of life, especially when faced with a dilemma or when you are about to make personal or professional decisions. Lawyers come in handy when an individual seeks expertise in matters of law for criminal, corporate, personal, and civil matters.
As advocates, they represent one of the parties in a criminal or civil trial by presenting evidence and arguing in support of their client. As advisors, lawyers counsel their clients about their legal rights and obligations and suggest courses of action in business and personal matters.
By far the most significant clause in the amendment focuses on the right to counsel. Without that foundational right, defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford their own attorney would find it difficult, or even impossible, to exercise all those other fair trial rights the amendment recognizes.
The legal work that a licensed attorney performs on behalf of a client. Licensed attorneys have the authority to represent persons in court proceedings and in other legal matters.
âHuman rights lawyerâ refers to any lawyer who provides legal counsel to victims of human rights violations, regardless of membership in a professional association. These lawyers carry out a professional defence of human rights.
It describes the sources and broad definitions of lawyers' four responsibilities: duties to clients and stakeholders; duties to the legal system; duties to one's own institution; and duties to the broader society.
If you are charged with a crime, all of the rights that protect you, from the right to counsel to the right to remain silent to the right to a jury, all fall under the umbrella of âdue process.â It is âdue processâ that is designed to protect criminal defendants from passion and prejudice and ensure every individual ...
The term âpro perâ is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase âin propria persona,â meaning âin their own person,â and it refers to a situation where a litigant represents themselves, without a lawyer.
Pro se legal representation (/ËproĘ ËsiË/ or /ËproĘ ËseÉŞ/) comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves", which in modern law means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases or a defendant in criminal cases.
2) In a political context, right of representation is the right of a citizen to elect members of a legislature to represent them.
According to common perceptionâwhich is not shared by some lawyers and judgesâthe ultimate goal of the legal system is âjustice .â The striving for it makes good entertainment. People want to see justice done, and many working in the system want to make it function, or at least look, that way to bolster up support for the law. Through their upbringing and later socialization, individuals acquire the values of their society or group, some of which relate to criminal justice, and they expect the authorities to live up to them (on procedural fairness, see Tyler, 2006 ). People are not only interested in how they themselves would fare with the law but also how others are treated (Machura, 2001 ). Regarding criminal matters, justice comes as procedural fairness, on the one hand, and distributive, respectively retributive justice, on the other. Criteria for procedural fairness, an evaluation of the way decisions are reached, are largely similar for people of different social background and from different countries. This makes it easier for audiences around the world to understand films set in a particular national legal system (Machura, 2005 ). Fair procedures do not discriminate among parties and are characterized by impartial decision-makers who carefully sample and consider all relevant evidence, respect the rights and personae of those appearing in court, and allow defendants and witnesses to state their case or experiences. Defendants can be legally represented by lawyers. There also has to be a path to appeal a decision (on criteria, e.g., Leventhal, 1980; Tyler & Lind, 1992 ).
The culturally dominant depiction of the justice system is on balance positive: for dramaturgical reasons, lawyer heroes win their cases most of the time, judges are often wise and trustworthy, and the law, as well as the courts, are useful instruments for advancing oneâs good cause. Furthermore, the choice of topics often suggests a liberal political perspective. Countless films introduce the perils of manipulated trials and attack cruel punishments. Film and television make the public aware of rights and emphasize good lawyers and impartial judges as arbiters of justice. Alternative forms of âjusticeâ are shown in a very bad light. In this context, even the most critical works find their place: as an indictment of those deviations from the rule of law. This must be the essence of a liberal perspective on criminal justice: the system with its proper features may workâbut does not deserve blind trust.
Criticism of the justice system in mainstream productions falls short of what the subgenres of the court-martial film and the historic-injustice film present. Productions may reflect the audienceâs unease with the way the courts work in a specific country. But the relation between media portrayal and public opinion on the agents of law is not necessarily unambiguous. In a study with law students in North Wales, the consumption of fictional law series was found to have no effect on their trust in the courts, while respondents who had seen more TV reality-police shows had lower trust in the courts (Machura et al., 2014, pp. 297â298). Reality police series invite viewers to identify with the crime-fighting police, and as the credits roll, the audience typically learns that lenient sentences were given to perpetrators. Italian courts are famous for long trials, and Italian judges are accused of not working hard enough (on the perceived length of trials, see European Commission, 2013, T15, T23, T31). So in the episode âFind the Ladyâ ( 2006) of the series Il commissario Montalbano ( 1999 âpresent), the viewer finds Judge Scognamiglio at his desk, passing time by constructing a ship in bottle (Figure 8 ). When the busy Montalbano enters, the judge only just has time to cover the object with a newspaper.
Criminal justice and its institutions are key objects of popular culture and attract extensive media attention. The portrayal of the justice system, its rules, professions, and institutions has been invigorated with the invention of new media technology. The authoritiesâ reaction to wrong doing has proven not less exciting to the audience than the criminal acts themselves. French sociologist Emile Durkheim emphasized that every member of society has an interest in social cohesion and wishes to see perpetrators appropriately punished. The media plays to this basic inclination. From the reactions of the justice system to crime people take clues not only for its effectiveness but the public also wants to see its basic values represented in the work of officials and their decisions. Therefore, aspects of procedural and distributive justice are picked up by popular imagination and exploited to the full by media producers. Beyond recognition that media depictions of criminal justice will follow media conventions and will therefore be distorted in systematic ways, it has to be acknowledged that those representations and the expectations they formed have become a major force in society. Political repercussions and influences on how crime is dealt with are a consequence.
Greenfield, Osborn and Robsonâs ( 2001 ). Film and the law. The cinema of justice (is a very encompassing and theoretically grounded book that summarizes the authorsâ scholarship. For an early treatment of law in film see: Black ( 1999 ).
Films and, increasingly, TV series related to law inform the public about rights, including human rights, and the procedures to uphold and defend them. Law-related films and series are among the most popular media genres. In addition, they attract some of the most creative filmmakers and tend to involve legal experts.
Film and television make the public aware of rights and emphasize good lawyers and impartial judges as arbiters of justice. Alternative forms of âjusticeâ are shown in a very bad light. In this context, even the most critical works find their place: as an indictment of those deviations from the rule of law.
In analyzing claims that a defendant's lawyer was ineffective, the principal goal is to determine whether the lawyer's conduct so undermined the functioning of the judicial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. In order to prove this, the defendant must show:
In one case involving burglary and sexual assault, the defendant's attorney decided not to perform a DNA test at trial due, in part, to its cost. On appeal, DNA tests were performed and provided some exonerating evidence.
As previously discussed, not every action or inaction is necessarily a violation of a defendant's right to adequate representation. However, there are some common claims that would usually unfairly prejudice a case. These include an attorney's failure to: 1 Investigate a case 2 Present supporting witnesses 3 Interview or cross-examine witnesses 4 Object to harmful evidence or arguments/statements 5 Seek DNA or blood testing (where available) 6 File timely appeal (s) 7 Determine if there would be a conflict of interest in representing the defendant
However, an incompetent or negligent lawyer can so poorly represent a client that the court is justified in overturning a guilty verdict based on the attorney's incompetence. Continue on to learn more about your right to adequate representation and how it can apply in any case against you.
As previously discussed, not every action or inaction is necessarily a violation of a defendant's right to adequate representation. However, there are some common claims that would usually unfairly prejudice a case. These include an attorney's failure to: Investigate a case. Present supporting witnesses.
Our judges know, as urged by Jesse Rutledge of the National Center for State Courts in an earlier article in this series, that they need to do their share, each day, to earn the trust and confidence of the public which they serve. Understanding the challenges faced by their fellow community members through listening and outreach before community members seek justice in the courts is an important first step for those judges who want to earn the trust that leads to sustained judicial independence.
Similarly, lawyers can do their part to help build trust and confidence in our justice system by educating those whom they represent about the rule of law in our society and the courtâs role in upholding same.
We also know that serving our communities is an important way to instill confidence in our justice system. In Louisiana, we are fortunate. Although our justice system is woefully under-resourced in almost every aspect that mattersâfrom understaffed police departments, prosecutors, and public defenders, to our antiquated and inadequate courthouses and technology systems, to our overworked court personnelâa bright spot is our judiciary, the majority of whom understand that their role as jurists, as leaders in the law, does not start and end with the sound of a gavel. They serve as community leaders throughout their careers on the bench. They step up to serve as presidents of local bar associations, contribute to the state bar and bar associations of color, lead the local chapter of the federal bar, and serve in leadership within the American Bar Association. They serve regularly in soup kitchens. They go out into their communitiesâwhether at synagogue, school, or neighborhood centerâto speak and, mostly, listen. They donate their time to causes for access to justice and beyond. They donât do it for recognition. They do it because they care.
To achieve justice for all in our country, we must work collectively to assure that our court system is strong and that our judiciary remains independent. It must be not only for and when our own interests or those of our clients are at stake. Rather, it must be so each time we see injustice, lack of access, attacks on the judiciary, or services rendered by the justice system that fall short of what Americans are guaranteed by our Constitution. We cannot stand silent and turn a blind eye. There are concrete ways that individual lawyers and judges immediately can contribute to rekindling trust and confidence in our American justice system.
Large corporations and others who can afford the cost of litigation often turn away from the courts because of delays, inefficiencies and legal costs.
The legal profession of lawyers and judges and all those who have the privilege of delivering legal services to the public cannot leave it to those in future years to restore trust in our justice system. It will be too late. We must do our part, individually and collectively, to make the concept of justice a reality for all. This is our moment to get it right. To get it right for those whom we serve.
We cannot stand silent and turn a blind eye. There are concrete ways that individual lawyers and judges immediately can contribute to rekindling trust and confidence in our American justice system.
Because legal proceedings are governed by complex sets of rules and laws, lawyers go through rigorous training and qualification.
Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment gives individuals the right to have an attorney present whenever they are in custody and being interrogated by law enforcement. A typical scenario involves being under arrest and questioned by police as part of a criminal investigation.
This right is so important that, if you canât afford an attorney in situations where the right to counsel applies, you may request a court-appointed lawyer paid for at government expense.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel can also kick in before the court hearings start. If a prosecutor charges or a grand jury indicts a defendant with a crime, the case switches from criminal investigation to prosecution, and the right to counsel applies to any police-initiated questioning, lineups, or showups following that decision to prosecute. Even if police suggest it's just a "few questions" or a "quick lineup," it's not a good idea to waive your right to an attorney just to speed things up. Having an attorney by your side is important to make sure a lineup or showup is done fairly, to make sure you don't answer questions that might harm your case, and to level the playing field.
If a judge fails to make a clear record of a defendantâs knowing and intelligent decision to waive counsel, a later conviction could be reversed on appeal because of that failure. ( Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).)
The pitfalls of self-representation are considerable. Even in a fairly âsimpleâ case, such as an assault, legal concepts like â self-defense â or â adequate provocation â will likely be misunderstood by the non-lawyer. In addition, the pro se defendant will not know the rules of evidence and could lose the case simply because a crucial piece of evidence was not properly introduced or kept out. Further, your opponent, a prosecutor, will show no mercy in exploiting your ignorance in order to win the case. The dangers of self-representation are indeed too numerous to mention.
The dangers of self-representation are indeed too numerous to mention. If you are considering acting as your own lawyer, you should at least consult with an attorney at the earliest stage of your case to discuss how self-representation might play out in light of the legal and factual issues involved.