Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but your view of what's constitutional, or mine, doesn't count.
>>
>> As for the attorney business, so far as I know, no case in the
>> almost 200 years prior to the court's ruling was reversed due to the
>> absence of counsel.
>
> Utter bull****. Even the lack of effective counsel, or unprepared
> counsel has caused the reversal of cases.
>
> Do the google yourself.
I didn't say "effective" or "unprepared." I said "absence."
Until the SCOTUS decision in Gideon v Wainwright (1963) that said because
a
felony defendant had a right to counsel therefore the state had a duty to
provide one, did such duty become "constitutional."
In the famous gun case, U.S. vs. Miller (1934), Miller didn't have a
lawyer
to argue before the Supreme Court. Miller lost.
The accused has always had a "right" to counsel; the constitutional issue
was whether the state had a duty to provide such.
|
