Case brief

Student’s Name
Instructor’s name
Class Name
Date
Case Briefs
CASE I
Title of case: Terry vs. Ohio (1968)
Facts: Officer realized that the complainant kept on chatting with another person along the street curve while moving every time on the street. Sometimes the people would peer to a store opening and talk further. Also, the people talked to the third person who they finally trailed along the street. Besides, the officer held that other men and the complainant were casing a store so that they can potentially robber it. The officer decided to approach those men for questioning. The petitioners fast frisking produced a hidden weapon, and that made the petitioner to be charged with carrying of hidden weapon (Kemp 1).
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment in search of a weapon without warrant arrest is a search without reason?
Held: The Supreme Court believed that a search is reasonable at a time when an officer carries out a partial search for a weapon on an individual who the officer believed may be armed. An officer could be burden by the prohibition of searching people that he suspects to be armed.
Concurrence: J. Harlan concurred with majority, but he stressed an additional need of the sensibleness of the stop to inspect the crime
Dissent: J. Douglas disagreed, he said the majority holding could give controls to the officer to permit a seizure and search that even a magistrate cannot even posses
Discussion: A summary fact of this case is essential to comprehend the willingness of the Supreme Court to authorize the search.

It is noted that the suspicious actions were armed robbery and violent crime. If the suspicion of the officer were right, he would be in danger when approaching them for questioning without searching the men.
CASE 2
Title of case: Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963)
Facts: The court charged Gideon with a crime of breaking a poolroom with the intent to execute misdemeanor, which according to the law of Florida State is a felony. Gideon went before a court without a lawyer or money. Gideon appealed the judge to assign him a lawyer since he could not manage one. The judge declined the offer because the law in Florida only accepts the appointment of a lawyer for the poor complainants accused of a capital offense. After the denial of the court, Gideon proceeded to represent himself in the court. Gideon did what could be expected from a layman, but still, the judge found him guilty. Gideon then appealed a case to challenge his conviction and sentence based on the case facts and appealed to the court claiming the court’s refusal to appoint him a counsel (Skelton 1).
Issue: In the constitution of Florida, is the 6th amendment warranty of the lawyer a significant right which should be made compulsory on the state by the constitution on the 14th amendment?
Court decision: A unanimous court in the Gideon versus Wainwright overruled Betts versus Brady and believed that in its opponent method of the criminal justice where a person haled into a court and is extremely poor cannot be assured a fair judgment unless the lawyer is given for him.
Holding: Denying the Betts reasoning, the Supreme Court decided that the right to assistance of the lawyers is essential and the fourteenth amendment of the constitution makes the right required in the courts of the state.
Discussion: The decision of overruling Betts verse Brady set the common assurance of the defendant to be given a chance to be impartially tried with the support of the lawyers irrespective of the charges harshness.

Works cited
Kemp, David S. “Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).” Justia Law, 2018, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html.
Skelton, Chris. “Gideon V. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).” Justia Law, 2018, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/case.html.