1. An Overview of The Mapp, Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda cases. Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

2. Who’s the Guy in the Suit?  Brendon Basiga – Criminal Defense Lawyer; The Nichols Law Firm;  Misdemeanor Felony; Eg.: Shop Lifting 1 st Degree Murder; Juvenile and Adult  State Federal; Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

3. Mapp v. Ohio FFacts: Decided in 1961 Fugitive Search Police force entry into Ms. Mapp’s house NO WARRANT! Find “obscene” materials; Jury Trial Convicts her of Felony – Possession of Obscene Materials UUS Supreme Court’s Ruling: Conviction overturned 4 th Amend. To US Constitution Generally, cops can only search with a Warrant; need Probable Cause to get Warrant No Probable Cause, No Warrant, Illegal Search Case DISMISSED Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

4. Mapp v. Ohio (Cont.) LIFE BEFORE MAPPLIFE AFTER MAPP  Warrants were not standard procedure  Cases were investigated backwards (“Fall Guy”)  Un-sanctioned “raids” took place  Very little that a Defendant could do about it  Warrants have BECOME standard practice  “Swear-to” can be used by both Prosecutor and Defense  Police must have more than “a hunch”  “Fruit of the poisonous tree!” – Defendant’s recourse Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

5. Gideon v. Wainwright  Facts: Someone, somewhere, at some point in time broke into a Club Gideon is accused of the break in DENIED court- appointed lawyer Jury Trial convicted him (represented himself)  US Supreme Court’s Ruling: Right to a lawyer is fundamental Court ordered a new trial and that Gideon be granted an attorney at public expense (court- appointed) Gideon is found NOT GUILTY Established the Court- Appointed Legal System country-wide Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

6. Gideon v. Wainwright (Cont.) LIFE BEFORE GIDEONLIFE AFTER GIDEON  Those who could not afford a lawyer, were not generally given one  Few exceptions  Death Penalty cases  Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, Federal Cases  Well-known and often heard phrase from Judges: “If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you at public expense.”  Public Defender Offices around the country  Every State MUST have a court-appointed system Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

7. Escobedo v. Illinois  Facts: Danny Escobedo Suspected of killing brother-in-law At one point during investigation, Escobedo was interrogated without lawyer Cops REFUSED to allow access to lawyer Lawyer showed up at police station, and was REFUSED entry After 4 hours of intense interrogation without lawyer, Escobedo “Confessed” Convicted at Jury Trial Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

8. Escobedo v. Illinois (Cont.)  US Supreme Court Ruling: Right to have a lawyer present is a FUNDAMENTAL right Under the 6 th Amendment of Constitution Right to a lawyer begins at time of interrogation Overturned entire conviction  LIFE BEFORE: Right to a lawyer generally only in court Not usually at the time of police interrogations  LIFE AFTER: Defendant asks, he gets! Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

9. Miranda v. Arizona  Facts: Decided in 1966 after Escobedo Ernesto Miranda was arrested Interrogated for 2 hours with no lawyer NEVER told about his rights Interrogated by several officers Miranda was an indigent Mexican- born man After intense interrogation the officers came up with a signed “Confession” Jury Trial convicted him of kidnapping and rape Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

10. Miranda v. Arizona (Cont.)  US Supreme Court Ruling: Court was angry that cops were trying to find a “creative” way around Escobedo Set out very clear guidelines about what a person in custody must be advised of: ○ That he has a right to remain silent ○ That any statements his makes may be used against him as evidence in court ○ That he has a right to have an attorney present ○ That he may waive these rights, but only voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently Penalty for failing to warn = Any statements obtained in violation of this case are INadmissible!! Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

11. Miranda V. Arizona (Cont.) LIFE BEFORE MIRANDALIFE AFTER MIRANDA  Unless he already knew his rights, he could be held without being told  Suspect/Defendant had to actively ask to speak to a lawyer  Those who did not know to ask, would not be given one  High price to pay for violating these warnings  Entire investigations have been blown because of a failure to advise of rights  See Cops, Law and Order, Police TV Dramas Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga

12. Questions? Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga