English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Over the past forty years, the Supreme Court has struggled to find the proper level of access to the justice system for the poor. The United States's commitment to a market economy inevitably results in wealth disparities that prevent the poor from receiving the same level of access to counsel as the rich. In trying to resolve the resulting tension between capitalism and equal justice, the Court has rejected most attempts to remedy the effects of the law on disadvantaged groups. As an alternative, the Court has recognized a limited number of fundamental constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In some cases, the fundamental rights strand of equal protection has secured equal access to the justice system for the poor by waiving filing and transcript fees and by providing counsel. A recent parental termination case involving a transcript fee waiver was a rare instance in which the Court explicitly sought to remove poverty as a barrier to justice. In December 1996, the Court held that Melissa Lumpkin Brooks, an indigent Mississippi woman, was entitled to a free transcript in order to appeal the state's decision to take away her two children. The 6-3 decision in M.LB. v. S.L.J. was based on the fundamental right of access to the criminal process initially recognized in the 1956 case of Griffin v. Illinois.2 Griffin, relying on the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, held that an indigent criminal

Disparate Impact on Death Row: M. L. B. and the Indigent's Right to Counsel at Capital State Postconviction Proceedings