
	Where results make sense

Topic: Johnson v Zerbst

Related Topics

Christian Augustus of Anhalt Zerbst

Friedrich August of Anhalt Zerbst

Christian August of Anhalt Zerbst

Johnson v Zerbst

In the News (Mon 4 Jun 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	[No title]
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. Because it apparently did not occur to their attorney to raise a double jeopardy claim before respondents pleaded guilty (see J.A. 72-73), they argue that the guilty pleas in this case were not "waivers" and therefore do not affect their ability to raise a double jeopardy claim at any later time.
		Zerbst standard rules this case, however, is conclusively refuted by the authorities cited in our opening brief and in fact is inconsistent with at least three lines of cases decided by this Court.
		Zerbst standard does not apply to "strategic and tactical decisions, even those with constitutional implications, by a counseled accused"; rather, "if the defendant has an objection, there is an obligation to call the matter to the court's attention so the trial judge will have an opportunity to remedy the situation").
	www.usdoj.gov /osg/briefs/1988/sg880501.txt (3105 words)

	Betts v. Brady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Zerbst, the Supreme Court had held that defendants in federal courts had a right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
		Alabama, the Court had held that state defendants in capital cases were entitled to counsel, even when they could not afford it; however, the right to an attorney in trials in the states was not yet obligatory in all cases as it was in federal courts under Johnson v.
		Zerbst, making the point that had the proceedings of Betts’s case been held in federal court, his petition for counsel to be appointed to him would have been accepted and counsel would have been appointed.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Betts_v._Brady (572 words)

	Dietrich v The Queen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Dietrich v The Queen was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on November 13, 1992.
		It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial, and under what circumstances indigent defendants (defendants who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state.
		Zerbst (1938), the Supreme Court expanded this principle to cover all federal trials, and in Gideon v.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Dietrich_v_The_Queen (2124 words)

	01-1679 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-30)
		On appeal, Gordon argued that his trial counsel's closing argument concession of guilt on the disorderly conduct while armed count constituted ineffective assistance of counsel of a type that is conclusively presumed to be prejudicial, automatically requiring a new trial.
		The concession by counsel was not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea under the circumstances of this case, where it came in closing argument, on one count in a multiple-count case, after full adversarial testing of the State's case and after the defendant had admitted on the witness stand the facts constituting the offense.
		Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 85 (1983)("An erroneous presumption on a disputed element of the crime renders irrelevant the evidence on the issue because the jury may have relied upon the presumption rather than upon evidence.").
	www.courts.state.wi.us /html/sc/01/01-1679.htm (9920 words)

	ar04-406
		In Johnson, the appellant was convicted in municipal court of DWI and violation of the implied-consent law; he appealed to the circuit court, where in a de novo bench trial he was again found guilty of both offenses.
		On appeal to our supreme court, one of Johnson's contentions was that the circuit court failed to obtain a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial because the trial judge did not address him personally and obtain a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver from him.
		In Johnson, the supreme court noted that the record was "far from silent on the question of waiver," and was "quite similar to the record in Bolt." Id.
	courts.state.ar.us /opinions/2005a/20050223/ar04-406.html (1752 words)

	Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993).
		Noia, 372 U.S. Kaufman, supra, at 223; Wainwright v.
		Beginning in the late 19th century, however, that rule was gradually relaxed, by the device of holding that various illegalities deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 468 (1938) (no jurisdiction to conduct trial that violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
	supct.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/91-1030.ZX1.html (2335 words)

	WYOM Found Document:MAHORNEY v. CITY OF TULSA
		Wainwright, 372 U.S., 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and Rankin v.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S., 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed.
		Zerbst, supra, 304 U.S. at 464, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed.
	wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us /applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=603 (1469 words)

	[No title]
		United States}{\f0, 397 U.S. The State bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the accused was sufficiently aware of the consequences of what he was doing and that he knowingly and intelligently waived these vital constitutional rights.
		The burden is on the prosecution to show that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the confession was voluntarily given.
		V, VI, VIII, IX, and XIV; Ohio Const.
	www.hamilton-co.org /pub_def/Motions/MM_91.dot (606 words)

	[No title]
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, was the outgrowth of a practice which had become common in the federal court system and constituted, to some extent, an exercise by this Court of its supervisory and rule–making powers over the inferior federal courts.
		Zerbst and from the circumstances under which it was rendered, that the holding of that case was not predicated on history nor was it based on the premise that automatic appointment in all criminal cases is a requisite of due process of law under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
		Zerbst [*27] opinion with respect to the common understanding of the meaning of the Sixth Amendment is illustrated by Judge Sibley’s opinions in Salyor v.
	www.yale.edu /lawweb/avalon/curiae/html/372-335/005.htm (13123 words)

	Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), has made it very clear that it is the obligation of this Court to ensure that effective assistance of Counsel is available to a criminal defendant at every point of all criminal proceedings.
		Furthermore, during the evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not the search and seizure in the instant case were lawful in the first instance, the Prosecutor questioned an alleged government agent as to why no search warrant had been obtained.
		In the alternative, Defendant places all interested parties on formal notice of Her immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds of violations of Her fundamental Rights, contrary to the Bill of Rights and two international treaties which are all supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
	www.supremelaw.org /cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (1074 words)

	WYOM Found Document:Duffy v. State
		In Duffy's petition, in connection with the writ of certiorari that was granted, his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is predicated only on the failure of trial counsel to inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences.
		Both by brief and at argument, Duffy earnestly and vigorously contended he had been deprived of the right to be represented by counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings.
		Craig, 497 U.S., ___, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3166, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), the presence of counsel at all proceedings where the accused is forced to attend is not just appropriate, it is the essence of the due process understanding which is intrinsic to American law.
	wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us /applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeID=122902 (7931 words)

	Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
		That the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in "all criminal prosecutions" is clear both from the language of the Amendment and from this Court's interpretation.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. It is equally clear from the above cases, all decided after Betts v.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, but to have imposed these requirements on the States would indeed have been "an abrupt break" with the almost immediate past.
	www.nationalcenter.org /cc0727.htm (4284 words)

	US v. Akins
		We have consistently held that in order to knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel, the defendant must be made aware of (1) the nature of the charges against him; (2) the possible penalties; and (3) the dangers and disadvantages of self representation.
		When no waiver inquiry appears on the record, we must look to "the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused" to determine whether the record as a whole supports a finding that the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
		Recognizing the importance of the decision to plead guilty, we have held that a district court must inform a felony defendant of the dangers of self-representation prior to accepting a guilty plea.
	www.mcadlaw.com /us_v__akins.htm (2699 words)

	SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
		Zerbst, supra, dealt with the denial of counsel in a federal criminal trial.
		Zerbst rule make clear that it would be next to impossible to apply to a consent search the standard of "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege."[Footnote 31] To be true to Johnson
		Zerbst, 304 U.S., itself relied on three civil cases, but none of those cases established the proposition that a waiver, to be effective, must be knowing and intelligent.
	supreme.justia.com /us/412/218/case.html (16605 words)

	Converted file rts
		In considering Johnson’s claim, the Court noted that “[b]ecause petitioner is still on direct review, Griffith requires that we apply Gaudin retroactively.” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467.
		Booker, 543 U.S. at ___, 125 S.Ct. at 749, 160 L.Ed.2d at 643; Blakely v.
		Johnson should be commended for utilizing a unique and useful legal resource in the service of his organization.
	www.in.gov /judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/03090501.rts.html (5585 words)

	Gonzalez v State
		Zerbst which means appellant may raise his multiple punishments claim for the first time on appeal since he did not affirmatively “waive” it.
		Zerbst “waiver” of double jeopardy rights for Marin purposes because these cases assessed the effectiveness of a particular “waiver” of double jeopardy rights in a variety of contexts.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed.1461 (1938) (“waiver” is “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege” and “waiver” of right to counsel cannot be inferred from a silent record); Brewer v.
	www.bakers-legal-pages.com /cca/opinions/146698a.htm (3045 words)

	Strickland v. Washington
		For that reason, the Court has recognized that "the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel." Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense.
		We need not consider the role of counsel in an ordinary sentencing, which may involve informal proceedings and standardless discretion in the sentencer, and hence may require a different approach to the definition of constitutionally effective assistance.
		Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981), that counsel's role in the proceeding is comparable to counsel's role at trial--to ensure that the adversarial testing process works to produce a just result under the standards governing decision.
	www.law.wayne.edu /Faculty/Fac_web/moran/Strickland.htm (4642 words)

	[No title]
		Zerbst, the Court declared that “the Sixth Amendment withholds from Federal Court, in all criminal proceedings, the power and authority to deprive an accused of his life and liberty unless he has or waives the assistance of counsel.” Ibid.
		The matter of obtaining counsel was considered by the dissent, which observed that the practical effect of speedy application of the rule was that “prompt hearing gives an accused an opportunity to obtain a lawyer,” with all of the consequences of giving legal advice to “the illiterate and inexperienced.” 335 U.S. at 424.
		Zerbst, supra, appointed counsel was required “in all cases where a defendant is unable to procure the services of an attorney.” 316 U.S. at 464.
	www.yale.edu /lawweb/avalon/curiae/html/384-436/008.htm (12075 words)

	People v. Garcia (1979) 98 CA3d Supp 14
		Zerbst was quoted by the California Supreme Court in People v.
		Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465.) As we said in Chesser (at pp.
		Zerbst, supra, 304 U.S. 458, sets the standard: "It has been pointed out that 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver' of fundamental constitutional rights and that we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.'" (304 U.S. at p.
	online.ceb.com /calcases/CA3/98CA3dS14.htm (2579 words)

	People v. Montgomery (1942) 51 CA2d 444
		When a judgment is itself appealable, the appeal must be taken therefrom and not from a subsequent order refusing to vacate it.
		Carkeek, 35 Cal.App.2d 499, 503 [96 P.2d 132].) This is especially true where the questions presented upon the appeal from the subsequent order could have been fairly and properly raised on an appeal from the judgment.
		Zerbst, supra.) But such investigation may not be initiated by his motion to vacate such judgment.
	online.ceb.com /CalCases/CA2/51CA2d444.htm (519 words)

	Gideon v. Wainwright
		The Sixth Amendment provides, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.' We have construed this to mean that in federal courts counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right is competently and intelligently waived.
		Explicitly recognized to be of this 'fundamental nature' and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances.
		Later in the petition for habeas corpus, signed and apparently prepared by petitioner himself, he stated, 'I, Clarence Earl Gideon, claim that I was denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.' FN2.
	shs.westport.k12.ct.us /jwb/AP/TLdocs/gideon.htm (3910 words)

	UNITED STATES v. MINORU YASUI - District Court, D. Oregon
		It is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme co-operative effort to preserve the nation.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed.
		In Hawaii at the present time, pursuant to a proclamation of martial law, military commissions for violations of the laws of the United States or the Territory or the "rules, regulations, orders or policies of the military authorities" adjudge punishment commensurate with the offense committed and "may adjudge the death penalty in appropriate cases".
	bss.sfsu.edu /internment/yasui1942.html (6752 words)

	Browse Caselaw
		Zerbst, 304 U. 'A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.
		The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.' Johnson v.
		Zerbst that the trial judge has the responsibility of determining whether the accused has intelligently waived his right to counsel.
	www.lawskills.com /case/ga/id/25263 (725 words)

	Jhun v. State (Summary Disposition Order)
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), and Von Moltke v.
		Gillies, 332 U.S. However, both Johnson and Von Moltke ultimately dealt with the validity of a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel and did not address the standard for determining the effectiveness of a defendant's waiver of jury trial.
		Inasmuch as the minutes from the May 26, 1967 arraignment and plea hearing reflect that Jhun waived the right to jury trial, Jhun was charged with the burden of proof regarding his petition.
	www.hawaii.gov /jud/25721sdo.htm (687 words)

	Alcatraz - Johnson vs. Zerbst
		JOHNSON V. Editor's Note: This case of an Atlanta prisoner led many at Alcatraz to undertake the study of law and submit writs of habeas corpus so that their sentences might be reduced or eliminated entirely.
		It is one of the key decisions in United States judicial history guaranteeing, to all accused of felonies in federal court, regardless of their ability to pay, the right to counsel.
		Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 113 - that it "falls with the premise." to deprive a citizen of his only effective remedy would not only be contrary to the "rudimentary demands of justice" (21) but destructive of a Constitutional guaranty specifically designed to prevent injustice.
	www.notfrisco2.com /alcatraz/documents/SCjvsz.html (2381 words)

	The ACLU of Utah Outlines the Effects of Alabama v. Shelton
		The ACLU of Utah Outlines the Effects of Alabama v.
		This determination turns "upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused." Johnson v.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed.
	www.acluutah.org /ltr070102.htm (747 words)

	Kaiser v. State - Appellee Brief
		Johnson appealed, but failed to properly preserve any claim for a thirty-day response time under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
		Chesney, 367 F.3d 1055, 1058 (citing Johnson v.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. As long as the waiver of Sixth Amendment rights does not result in a "miscarriage of justice," the waiver would be enforceable.
	www.court.state.nd.us /court/briefs/20040135.aeb.htm (2618 words)

	[No title]
		Jones stated that a “ waiver is generally defined as an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, and courts should indulge in every reasonable presumption, arising from the particular facts and circumstances of the case, that weigh against any waiver of constitutional rights.” (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 21, 24.
		Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, at 464 (1938) the Court stated that “[w]hether one accused of crime has waived his right to assistance of counsel for his defense must depend on each case in particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.” In citing Johnson v.
		Zerbst, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.
	www.hamilton-co.org /pub_def/Motions/mc_supp_statmt.dot (617 words)

	Gideon V
		Both of the rules were set out clearly in the landmark case of Johnson v.
		This doctrine was reaffirmed in Von Moltke v.
		Gillies (1948), where the signing of a formal waiver of the right to counsel even by an "intelligent, mentally acute woman" was not, in the circumstances, the kind of "intelligent" waiver which could deprive her of her Sixth Amendment right.
	www.ecfs.org /projects/fieldston57/since40/units/unit3/supplements/Gideon.html (2620 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)