The Powell v. Alabama Case and Courts Ruling - Research Paper Example

? Powell V. Alabama Background of the Case The Powell v. Alabama case originates from occurrences that took place around March in 1931. It involved nine blacks renowned as Scottsboro Boys accused of rape. The above black men were in a travel boarded in a freight train together with seven male whites and two female whites. As a result, a fight emerged, and every white male was thrown outside apart from one white male. Hoffmann et al identifies that the women on board accused the blacks of rape.1 However, one woman later withdrew her previous claim for rape. Additionally, it is worthwhile noting that every defendant part from Roy Wright got a death sentence precedent by one day series of trials. Foner reveals that prior to the trial, the defendants enjoyed access to lawyers. Consequently, the defendants had insignificant time for planning defense. 2 He has added that, the defendants appealed against the above ruling on the basis of inadequate legal counsel. Notably, the supreme court of Alabama ruled by a vote of six against one that there was a fair trial. Considerably, it is noteworthy pointing out that Anderson, the chief justice, produced a tough nonconformist opinion that resulted to an appeal to the Supreme Court in the US against the ruling. The Court’s Ruling Hoffmann et al indicates that, during the ruling, the supreme US’s Supreme Court majority opinion overturned and remanded the ruling of the supreme court of Alabama, maintaining that the court had violated the due process. Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision rested on three significant arguments; firstly, the defendants did not receive fair, unbiased and purposeful trial. Secondly, they did not access the right of counsel, with the familiar consultation incidents and a chance for trial. Lastly, the trial took place before juries chosen racially from unqualified people; hence systematically excluding qualified juries. It is worthwhile noting that the conviction was unlawful since the accused did not access the counsel’s assistance right from their arraignment up to the commencement of their trial. This led to breaching the due process section of the 14th Amendment. Foner indicates `that the section, counsel has to be certain to anybody subject to the likelihood of a death sentence, be it in state or else federal courts.3 Conclusively, our group does not support the court’s ruling because as indicated above, had interfered with state courts; hence, going beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, our group has agreed with the above discussed dissenting opinions because the trial court had really acted upon the laid down procedures. The only missing point is the lack of representation for the defendants. However, one should note that a court has its own individual reasons to at times deviate from norms especially if the situation calls for the same. Notably, the US Supreme Court did not conduct situational analysis before delivering its ruling. 4 Consequences/implications of the Ruling Assuming the court it is absolutely devoid of merit, all other claims that the petitioners’ constitutional rights got violated, positions its viewpoint and ruling upon a solitary declaration of reality. Furthermore, the petitioners did not access the right of counsel, with the familiar consultation incidents and preparation opportunity for trial. If this is factual, they were deprived of the due process of law; hence, they were at liberty to have the rulings against them upturned, however, there are no records for such denial. Hoffmann et al argues that nine defendants, together with Patterson, were charged for one condemnation, and he was as well unconnectedly indicted. As opposed to trying using the en masse, the government provided four trials; hence lessening the risk of error and unfairness that unavoidably attends an effort in a particular trial to determine the culpability or blamelessness of the accused.5 Dissenting opinions If right, the judgment that the malfunction of the trial court to grant petitioners time as well as a chance to look for counsel was a refutation of due process is sufficient, and therefore, the opinion should get concluded. However, the fact that the Court goes ahead and affirms that the malfunction of the trial court to create an efficient counsel appointment was equally a rejection of due process with regard to amendment number fourteen. 6 Nothing before the Court calls for a deliberation of the position. Steven identifies that The Scottsboro trials were a justice travesty, the indicted having been pushed through a biased system. The right of the young black men to counsel was significantly essential to criminal procedures that whichever trial carried out devoid of a defense attorney could not be regarded as fair. Alabama’s carrying out of the trial was undue to the extent that it was an infringement of a fundamental decency rule and fairness under the Constitution.7 The right to lawful counsel as provided in the Amendment number six pertains solitary to federal courts. Every individual State carries out its individual CJS, independent from federal influence, under the constitution’s reserved powers. Alabama enjoys its individual bill of rights that identifies the right of the charged to acquire counsel, although it does not oblige the State to reimburse for attorneys for defending accused individuals. Conclusively, one can maintain that the Supreme Court ought to desist from obstructing the internal business of courts in the states. Furthermore, an attorney defended the charged, although each one was convicted. 8 Significance of the case today It is an astute rule, resolutely recognized through bureaucratic decisions that constitutional inquiries, even when properly raised as well as argued, are to be determined merely when essential for a resolve of the rights of the parties in argument before it. The record completely fails to make known that petitioners have been dispossessed of any right certain to the Federal Constitution, and I am of viewpoint that the ruling should be acknowledged.9 Importance of the case to American history and its relevance today With the above kind of ruling, the court laid down a model for the 14th amendment clause referred to as the due process section, which states that anyone obliged to a death sentence is entitled to guaranteed counsel, be it in state, or else federal court. Additionally, one should note that the above case set the leeway for integration into state establishments of fair trial guaranteed by the 6th amendment. Significantly, the above rights were later on made pertinent to the states by the amendment number fourteen. 10 Relevance of the case today is that it sets the jurisdiction for the federal courts and state courts. Bibliography Acker, James. Scottsboro and Its Legacy: The Cases that Challenged American Legal and Social Justice. New Haven, CT:Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. Chermak, Steven. Crimes an11d Trials of the Century [Two Volumes]. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- CLIO, 2007. Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History, Volume Two, Brief 3rd Edition. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning, 2010. Hoffman, Elizabeth, et al (eds.). Major Problems in American History, Volume II: Since 1865. 3rd Edition. W W Norton & Company Incorporated, 2012. Read More