W3CP8R

In a 150 words answering the question in bold below. This question was asked because what was said below. No title page. Need to cite and reference to support your answer(s)

In California (and in many other states), the right to counsel extends to misdemeanors, do you think that is correct?  Why or why not?

The question ask is because this posted answer

The right to counsel implies that the defendant/suspect has got the right to get assistance from the counsel i.e. attorneys and lawyers. In case he/she cannot afford to hire one, the government should hire or appoint one or meet the expenses of the defendant. The right to counsel is a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Right to counsel may not apply to all types of cases (Allen, 2015).

Development of the right to counsel has improved the efficiency and reliability of the criminal justice system. Defendants can get lawyers to assist them during their trial. The courts can not easily infringe the rights of these defendants due to the right to counsel. The defendants were given right to counsel in the federal prosecutions. This right don't apply to state non-felony cases. I would suggest the right to counsel to cover state prosecution felonies because the defendants may feel as outcast. All defendants should be granted right to counsel (Allen, 2015).

References

Allen, R. J. (2015). The right to counsel. New York: Springer.