First Case: State vs. John Arthur Senn Jr
Introduction
John Arthur Senn, Jr. was captured in 2014 for driving while drunk. He was required to take a drug test to determine the level of alcohol he had consumed. He appealed to the supreme court of Iowa, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney was overlooked after an officer declined his proposal to have a secret receiver call for a consultation (Rappaport, 2017). The court denied his request because the right to a lawyer does not apply before legal prosecution.
Rule of Law
A legal foundation and relevant Iowa case law, article I, part 10 is labeled “Rights of persons prosecuted.” It entails two articles that are not indicated in the Sixth Amendment, as discussed in the following sentences. In every illegal prosecution and case regarding the time or rights, the arrested have liberty for a rapid prosecution by an unbiased legal jurisdiction (Rappaport, 2017). He also holds the right to information about the allegation against him. The respondent has a right to get a copy of the charges when demanded. Furthermore, Joseph has the privilege to be investigated by bystanders against him, holds a right to have his bystanders, and the right to hire a lawyer. Iowa Law part 804.20 (2013) grants a limited legal right to counsel that permits the captured to make telephone calls to attorneys or relatives and meet alone and in secret with their counselor at the station (Rappaport, 2017). While the law encourages private in-person meetings, it sanctions the police administrator or keeper to staying near during the call.
Issue
Senn was sinful for driving under the influence of alcohol. A breath test carried at the station indicated that John had a blood alcohol content of 0.165, which is higher than double the allowed limit in Iowa laws (Rappaport, 2017). He was further detained for neglecting to follow a traffic indication and deported to the Des Moines police headquarters for liquor tests
Analysis
Applying the conventional definition of the Sixth Amendment writing that requires the involved to have counsel services, John was yet to face judgment. Therefore, no prosecution was to happen because there was no filed report in the jury (Rappaport, 2017). Hence, Senn did not have the freedom of an attorney at the point of his alcohol test. The administration further remarked on sound strategy ideas for not detailing a privilege to a secret prison phone communication (Rappaport, 2017). The officers would have no way to affirm that the individual on the other edge of the receiver was admittedly a lawyer. Necessitating privacy in those cases would make it straightforward to visualize the detainee using the advantage of secret conversation to notify confederates to escape or destroy the evidence (Rappaport, 2017). The jury accommodated the privilege of private attorney phone discussion does not make sense until filing a legal accusation. Therefore, Johns rights were maintained even if the officer stayed in the place during the conversation, and hence, he deserves condemnation.
Conclusion
For the above analysis, a right to an attorney and a drug test are crucial policies in this event. The chance to discuss with an attorney must be public to encourage a sensible circumstance. The right is time-limited to avoid weakening the strength of the State to administer relevant examination upon approval. In this case, the officer was wise for failing to leave during the secret call because the communication could have threatened the evidence.
Second Case: State vs. Joseph Spencer
Introduction
On July eighteenth, 1990, Sheriff Smith visited Spencer to investigate the illegal creation of firearms. As the sheriff walked to the edge of the apartment looking for an entrance, he noticed marijuana growing in his garden (Rappaport, 2017). Smith then secured a hunting license issued based on these considerations. During the search warrant, officials discovered bhang weeds, cocaine, and several firearms in his base.
Rule of Law
Right to self-representation is one of the rules found in this case. In the sixth legal amendment, the arrested criminal holds the right to an attorney (Rappaport, 2017). There is also the fourteenth amendment of the general code that extends this privilege to state lawyers. The Faretta v. California law holds that a prisoner in a state criminal prosecution owns a legal right to handle his case without a lawyer when he deliberately and wisely chooses to do so
Issue
On August twentieth of the same year, Joseph Nelson was charged with ownership of marijuana substances in violation of Iowa Code part 204.401(1) (b) by the jury. He was declared guilty of possessing and running a cocaine transaction in breach of Iowa Code section 724.3, 204.401(3). Furthermore, Nelson was found responsible for the intention to manufacture and unlawful ownership of firearms, in infringement of Iowa Code section 204.401(3) (1989) (Rappaport, 2017). Spencer hired a private lawyer named Richard Mock to represent him and declared him not chargeable. Counsel Richard filed a proposal to repress drugs and firearms grabbed during the performance of the quest warrant. Following an evidentiary trial, the region tribunal revoked the suggestion (Rappaport, 2017). After setting a trial date, Richard Mock left his position, leaving him with no representative. While at the performance of that act, the question emerged regarding who would steward the Spenser at the examination (Rappaport, 2017). Spencer told the court he wished to represent himself but acknowledged he lacked the knowledge of constitutional procedures or ways to dispute awkward confirmation. The court decided to select Richard McCoy to steward Joseph.
Analysis
Exercising the fundamental code part 204.401(1) (b) by Joseph Nelson Spencer was accountable for growing Marijuana plants. He was also sinful of owning cocaine, which is against the Iowa code section 724.3, 204.401(3). Besides, Joseph was culpable for unlawful fashioning and illegal possession of guns, opposite of Iowa law section 204.401(3) (1989) (Rappaport, 2017). Concerning the sixth law, Nelson abandoned his right to self-representation when notified that he did not understand legal systems or the way to oppose inappropriate testimony. The court maintained his rights by allowing him to hire a private lawyer, Richard Mock. After filling the bid to suppress firearms and drugs, the court overturned the proposal because there was reliable testimony from the substances grabbed during the search warrant (Rappaport, 2017). Richard quit his position leaving Joseph without a representative, and hence the court-appointed Richard McCoy to hold the position.
Conclusion
From the above details, Spencer was guilty and deserved punishment for violating the Iowa Laws. He owned weapons, grew marijuana, and occupied cocaine. Besides, his sixth amendment right was observed because he enjoyed the right to an attorney. Moreover, Spencer had the opportunity to represent him but broke it by declaring himself incompetent for the chance. Furthermore, the court was correct when it overturned Richards motion against weapons and drugs because there was enough evidence.
Reference
Rappaport, J. (2017). The Structural Function of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Choice. The Supreme Court Review, 2016(1), 117-156.