Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSwanda, Carol A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-14T18:51:37Z
dc.date.available2013-02-14T18:51:37Z
dc.date.issued1983en_US
dc.identifier.citation16 Creighton L. Rev. 1065 (1982-1983)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/39456
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy|the right ... to have the assistance of counsel ..... I ...no State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ... |The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. At first glance, these three provisions of the Constitution may not appear to be very closely related. Although all three provisions have a lengthy constitutional history, it was not until 1932, in the case of Powell v. Alabama, that the United States Supreme Court incorporated the right to the assistance of counsel into one of the elements of a constitutionally fair trial. To deny an indigent the right to counsel became tantamount to the denial of due process of law. The impact of Powell did not become readily apparent until the Court's decision in Johnson v. Zerbst. There, the Court held that, in the absence of an intelligent and voluntary waiver of a defendant's constitutional privileges, the failure to appoint counsel constituted a violation of a defendant's rights. This part of the Johnson decision was little more than an affirmation of the Court's holding in Powell. However, by enlarging the number of constitutional guarantees necessary for a fair trial, the Court also enlarged the scope of habeas corpus relief. Consequently, the three constitutional provisions have become interrelated. The right to counsel is a necessary element of due process, due process is a necessary element of a valid conviction and the writ of habeas corpus suspends invalid detentions...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleCriminal Procedure II - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel as Grounds for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Eighth Circuiten_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume16en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1982-1983en_US
dc.description.pages1065en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record