The rights to counsel are provided for in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Shea, 2011). The rights to counsel are premised on providing the services of a counsel/lawyer for any individual who is accused in any criminal proceedings. As such, defendants in all legal proceedings have the rights to have legal representation. In some instances, a defendant may not have the capacity to afford or arrange for legal representation; therefore, the state appoints legal counsel on behalf of the defendant. The state provides legal representation for defendants without a requirement for any financial contribution from them.
When a person is placed under arrest on the basis of criminal suspicion; the arresting officer is legally mandated to read the suspect his/her Miranda rights, significantly the rights to counsel. The reading of Miranda rights ensures that a criminal suspect is aware of their rights to counsel; hence they can request for their legal counsel if they wish to do so (Shea, 2011). In light of this, Miranda rights should be read on a timely manner; however, suspected individuals should not wait to be reminded of their rights to counsel, nor should they expect to be read Miranda rights, but they should request for legal representation as soon as the need arises such as on arrest.
The invocation of rights to counsel ensures that the interrogation processes are conducted in a transparent, legal and effective manner. In order to avoid ambiguity, suspects are required to invoke their rights to counsel in a timely and explicit manner. As such, when an individual is arrested, they have the burden to invoke their rights to counsel in a clear manner, as such, the arresting officers are not required to ask, infer or stipulate to the suspect the need for legal representation (Shea, 2011). Hence, if suspects do not clearly state their rights to counsel, law enforcement officers are not required to clarify such ambiguous requests.
The rights to counsel apply not only during interrogations but in any phase of legal proceedings. When a suspect invokes the rights to counsel, the suspect’s counsel has the rights to be present during arrests, interrogations, plea negotiations, arraignment in a court, hearing proceedings, trial, sentencing and appeal (Shea, 2011). The defense counsel’s function is vital in all criminal proceedings; as such, defined duties of legal counsel may vary depending on the aspects of the case and charges. Counsel for the defense is required to counsel the defendant on his/rights while explaining the various stages of the case and criminal proceedings. The defense counsel also ascertains that the defendant’s constitutional rights are preserved and not subjected to violations; through unlawful conduct on the part of law enforcement or during court processes. As such, the defendant’s counsel acts on behalf of the defendant through plea negotiations and bargaining with the state (Shea, 2011). Moreover, the defendant’s counsel investigates evidence and facts; cross examines witnesses presented by the state, objects to inappropriate evidence and questions while presenting legal defense in favor of the defendant.
The interpretation of the Rights to counsel as provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States constitution guarantees suspects/criminal defendants effective aid of legal counsel (Shea, 2011). As such, the defendant’s counsel must provide adequate representation for his client; failure to do so constitute the infringement of the defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial as stipulated in the Sixth Amendment (Shea, 2011). As such, the guarantee to an effective and adequate legal counsel, is made to all defendants; irrespective of whether counsel is appointed by the state on behalf of the defendant or the defendant made personal arrangements for his/her legal representation. Therefore, the successful acquittal is dependent on the counsel’s strategic choices; meanwhile, questionable strategies including the counsel’s errors may fail to overturn the conviction or to convince the court of the defendant’s innocence. However, when the counsel’s incompetence impacts the result of the case, the court may throw out or overturn a guilty verdict on the basis of the lawyer’s incompetence.