Florida v Powell is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 2010. The case involved a challenge to Florida's system of appointing counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases.
At the time of the case, Florida had a system in place where private attorneys were appointed to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases. These attorneys were paid a flat fee for their services, regardless of the amount of work they put in on the case.
The petitioner in the case, Larry Powell, was an indigent defendant who was appointed counsel under this system. Powell argued that the system violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as it did not provide him with effective assistance of counsel. He argued that the flat fee system incentivized appointed counsel to put in as little work as possible on the case, and that this resulted in a lack of effective representation for indigent defendants.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Powell, finding that the flat fee system used by Florida did indeed violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment requires that counsel be "reasonably competent and diligent." The Court found that the flat fee system did not provide sufficient incentives for appointed counsel to be reasonably competent and diligent, as they had no financial incentive to put in more time and effort on the case.
The decision in Florida v Powell had significant implications for the criminal justice system in the United States. It established that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and that systems that do not provide for this right may be found to be unconstitutional. The case also highlighted the importance of ensuring that indigent defendants have access to competent and diligent legal representation, as this is essential to ensuring a fair and just criminal justice system.
STATE v. POWELL
Shutze, who is also an appellant in this cause, performed an autopsy on Anthony's body. An intelligent suspect could reasonably conclude that all he was provided was a one-time right to consult with an attorney, not a right to have an attorney present with him in the interrogation room at all times. The two cases were consolidated and came before the trial judge on motions for summary judgment. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. See ante , at 6.
Florida v. Powell :: 559 U.S. 50 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
This Court first discussed the contours of the privilege against self-incrimination as afforded by both federal and Florida law. Brief for Respondent 50—53. To reach the opposite conclusion, i. The purposes of autopsies are to 1 determine cause of death, 2 identify health or safety hazards, 3 obtain evidence of criminal conduct, and 4 advance the understanding of medical science. Powell was convicted by the jury and sentenced to ten years in prison. Appellant Gauger is an investigator working for appellant Shutze's professional association; he is not an employee of the medical examiner's office. These duties and rights, predicated on religious, moral, and philosophical grounds, were recognized at common law and were not totally surrendered to the state when our constitutions were adopted.
State , 2 So. Two general questions, with numerous subsidiary questions, are whether the conditions precedent to cornea removal were present and whether the provisions of section 732. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. With or without cornea removal, the decedent's eyes must be capped to maintain a normal appearance. Instead, the suspect would likely assume that he must stay put in the interrogation room and that his lawyer would be there with him the entire time.
State v. Powell :: 1986 :: Florida Supreme Court Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia
In my view, the testimony in context is not probative of what Powell thought the warnings meant. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the statements. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. Appellees argue that, because the statute permits the removal of a decedent's corneas without reference to his family's preferences, it infringes upon a right, characterized as one of religion, family, or privacy, which is fundamental and must be subjected to strict scrutiny. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. Today, the Court decides a case in which the Florida Supreme Court held a local police practice violated the Florida Constitution.
He was called to the hospital where his son's body had been taken and met with appellant Gauger. As in Rigterink v. He had no knowledge that the corneas were going to be removed, did not authorize their removal, and learned of their removal for the first time when he began the autopsy. Eagan, Prysock, Prysock, the warning regarding the right to an appointed attorney contained no temporal limitation, see id. This case is easily distinguished from Long in that regard.
State , 596 So. United States, See, e. After finding that the admission of the statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we upheld the district court's decision. The first statement communicated that Powell could consult with a lawyer before answering any particular question, and the second statement confirmed that he could exercise that right while the interrogation was underway. Wade POWELL, et Ux. LaFleur, We reject appellees' argument.
As we explained in our previous decision in this case, "The catch-all phrase did not supply the missing warning of the right to have counsel present during police questioning because a right that has never been expressed cannot be reiterated. In examining what the state-court opinion said regarding state law, and whether the state precedent cited in the opinion relied upon state law, I am undertaking no effort more arduous than what the Court has typically undertaken in order to determine whether the Long presumption applies: examining how frequently a state-court opinion cited state law, whether state law is coextensive with federal law, and whether the cited state cases relied upon federal law. Instead, the suspect would likely assume that he must stay put in the interrogation room and that his lawyer would be there with him the entire time. He alone made the decision to perform the autopsy, relying on policy, section 406. Autopsies were needed in case there were civil suits arising from the death and were important to insurance companies, families, and anyone who might have an interest in the facts. The officers arrested Powell and transported him to the Tampa Police headquarters.
While the United States Supreme Court in Powell observed that the warnings given by the Tampa police to Powell were not deficient under the Federal Constitution, the Court also recognized that the warnings were not "the clearest possible formulation of Miranda's right-to-counsel advisement. It is equally unlikely that the suspect would anticipate a scenario of this order: His lawyer would be admitted into the interrogation room each time the police ask him a question, then ushered out each time the suspect responds. The various provisions of chapter 245, Florida Statutes 1981 , titled Disposition of Dead Bodies, are grounded on the right of the next of kin to claim control and possession of dead bodies. The order comes directly to us on the certification of the Fifth District Court of Appeal that it contains a question of great public importance which requires immediate resolution. Maher, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc.
Pitcairn, Long we advised every state court of a formula by which it could assure us that our review would indeed amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion. Other cases in which we have applied the Long presumption have been similarly devoid of independent state-law analysis. Even if a state court opinion does not include the magic words set forth in Long , or some similarly explicit sentence, we lack jurisdiction if it is nonetheless apparent that the decision is indeed supported by an adequate and independent state ground. In my view, this Court would better respect the independence of state courts by applying the opposite presumption, as it did in the years prior to 1983. A reasonable suspect in a custodial setting who has just been read his rights, we believe, would not come to the counterintuitive conclusion that he is obligated, or allowed, to hop in and out of the holding area to seek his attorney's advice. In contrast to the tissue donated by individuals, which is largely unusable because of the advanced age of the donor at death, approximately eighty to eighty-five percent of tissue obtained through medical examiners is suitable for transplantation.
He had no police report available and his only knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the death was based on the investigator's report by appellant Gauger. Because the United States Supreme Court has determined that the warnings sufficiently conveyed the right to the presence of counsel as required by the Federal Constitution, we find that the warnings were likewise sufficient under the Florida Constitution. . I am simply not prepared to rush to judgment on issues as important as these based on a summary judgment. He never met or talked with appellants Shutze and Techman. If we find the advice he received adequate, Powell suggests, law enforcement agencies, hoping to obtain uninformed waivers, will be tempted to end-run Miranda by amending their warnings to introduce ambiguity.
