PARTNER
검증된 파트너 제휴사 자료

변호인의 ‘충분한’ 조력을 받을 권리 - 미국 연방 수정헌법 제6조의 수용가능성 - (Right to “Effective” Assistance of Counsel - Focusing on the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel -)

24 페이지
기타파일
최초등록일 2025.06.29 최종저작일 2008.12
24P 미리보기
변호인의 ‘충분한’ 조력을 받을 권리 - 미국 연방 수정헌법 제6조의 수용가능성 -
  • 미리보기

    서지정보

    · 발행기관 : 한국비교형사법학회
    · 수록지 정보 : 비교형사법연구 / 10권 / 2호 / 257 ~ 280페이지
    · 저자명 : 송시섭

    초록

    Korean Constitution says, “Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel” (Article 12, Section 4). Constitutional Court of Korea explicitly affirms as a basic right of the detainee to assistance of counsel and this right is derived from the ‘principle of due process’ under Article 10 and Article 12, Section 1, of the Constitution, the ‘right to fair trial’ under Article 12, Section 4, and Article 27 of the constitution, and the ‘ideal of fair procedure’ as one of the elements of the principle of the government of the rule of law. As such, it is the right that should be guaranteed sufficiently and effectively. The requirement should not be satisfied by the mere formal appointment of an attorney to the detainee or defendant. United States Supreme Court has established significant decisions like Powell v. Alabama (1932) that failure to make an effective assistance by defense counsel would constitute deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment. This kind of consideration should be introduced into our constitutional interpretation. Former studies have been focused on the issues that detainee or defendant could disclosure the documents retained by the government or investigative authorities during the investigation and could seek free consultations from the attorney appointed by the suspect or the detainee. Now the time is come to turn our attentions to the sufficient and effective assistance by competent counsel in the formal proceeding. However this claim may not be decided by simple criterion and the reviewing court also has extremely difficult position because of the complexity of standards to direct the problem based on the quality or adequacy of tactical judgement by attorney on the every step in the process. But the standards, established by several leading cases like Strickland and Cronic, would be helpful to solve this difficult task. I hope this comparative study make it possible to deeper development for effective assistance of counsel in Korean criminal trial stage.

    영어초록

    Korean Constitution says, “Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel” (Article 12, Section 4). Constitutional Court of Korea explicitly affirms as a basic right of the detainee to assistance of counsel and this right is derived from the ‘principle of due process’ under Article 10 and Article 12, Section 1, of the Constitution, the ‘right to fair trial’ under Article 12, Section 4, and Article 27 of the constitution, and the ‘ideal of fair procedure’ as one of the elements of the principle of the government of the rule of law. As such, it is the right that should be guaranteed sufficiently and effectively. The requirement should not be satisfied by the mere formal appointment of an attorney to the detainee or defendant. United States Supreme Court has established significant decisions like Powell v. Alabama (1932) that failure to make an effective assistance by defense counsel would constitute deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment. This kind of consideration should be introduced into our constitutional interpretation. Former studies have been focused on the issues that detainee or defendant could disclosure the documents retained by the government or investigative authorities during the investigation and could seek free consultations from the attorney appointed by the suspect or the detainee. Now the time is come to turn our attentions to the sufficient and effective assistance by competent counsel in the formal proceeding. However this claim may not be decided by simple criterion and the reviewing court also has extremely difficult position because of the complexity of standards to direct the problem based on the quality or adequacy of tactical judgement by attorney on the every step in the process. But the standards, established by several leading cases like Strickland and Cronic, would be helpful to solve this difficult task. I hope this comparative study make it possible to deeper development for effective assistance of counsel in Korean criminal trial stage.

    참고자료

    · 없음
  • 자주묻는질문의 답변을 확인해 주세요

    해피캠퍼스 FAQ 더보기

    꼭 알아주세요

    • 자료의 정보 및 내용의 진실성에 대하여 해피캠퍼스는 보증하지 않으며, 해당 정보 및 게시물 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다.
      자료 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재∙배포는 금지되어 있습니다.
      저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁 요소 발견 시 고객센터의 저작권침해 신고센터를 이용해 주시기 바랍니다.
    • 해피캠퍼스는 구매자와 판매자 모두가 만족하는 서비스가 되도록 노력하고 있으며, 아래의 4가지 자료환불 조건을 꼭 확인해주시기 바랍니다.
      파일오류 중복자료 저작권 없음 설명과 실제 내용 불일치
      파일의 다운로드가 제대로 되지 않거나 파일형식에 맞는 프로그램으로 정상 작동하지 않는 경우 다른 자료와 70% 이상 내용이 일치하는 경우 (중복임을 확인할 수 있는 근거 필요함) 인터넷의 다른 사이트, 연구기관, 학교, 서적 등의 자료를 도용한 경우 자료의 설명과 실제 자료의 내용이 일치하지 않는 경우

“비교형사법연구”의 다른 논문도 확인해 보세요!

문서 초안을 생성해주는 EasyAI
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스의 방대한 자료 중에서 선별하여 당신만의 초안을 만들어주는 EasyAI 입니다.
저는 아래와 같이 작업을 도와드립니다.
- 주제만 입력하면 목차부터 본문내용까지 자동 생성해 드립니다.
- 장문의 콘텐츠를 쉽고 빠르게 작성해 드립니다.
- 스토어에서 무료 캐시를 계정별로 1회 발급 받을 수 있습니다. 지금 바로 체험해 보세요!
이런 주제들을 입력해 보세요.
- 유아에게 적합한 문학작품의 기준과 특성
- 한국인의 가치관 중에서 정신적 가치관을 이루는 것들을 문화적 문법으로 정리하고, 현대한국사회에서 일어나는 사건과 사고를 비교하여 자신의 의견으로 기술하세요
- 작별인사 독후감
해캠 AI 챗봇과 대화하기
챗봇으로 간편하게 상담해보세요.
2025년 07월 30일 수요일
AI 챗봇
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스 AI 챗봇입니다. 무엇이 궁금하신가요?
4:30 오후