Why does Atticus Finch take the Tom Robinson case?
471624
He believes every person deserves the best possible legal representation. He make no distinction based upon race. His live in helper, Calpurnia, who is colored is treated as an equal in his home. He is color blind, unlike most of the white residents of his town.
382226
Facts of the Case\n\nThompson was Sergeant-At-Arms for the House of Representatives. Hallett Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before and deliver documents to a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of J. Cook and Company. He appeared but refused to answer questions and did not deliver the documents. After a report back to the full House, Sergeant-At-Arms, John G. Thompson, was ordered to take Mr. Kilbourn into custody. When the Sergeant-At-Arms brought Mr. Kilbourn before the House to be questioned by the Speaker of the House, he again refused to answer questions or produce the documents. He also refused to offer an explanation of his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agrees to testify and produce the requested documents. \n\n \n\n \n\nQuestion Presented\n\nDoes the House of Representatives have the right to compel testimony?\n\n \n\nConclusion\n\nRarely. “...there is in some cases a power in each House of Congress to punish for contempt.” That power is qualified in the next paragraph, “The cases in which they can do this are very limited,” and they added, “...we cannot give our assent to the principle that, by the mere act of asserting a person to be guilty of a contempt, they thereby establish their right to fine and imprison him, beyond the power of any court or any other tribunal whatever to inquire into the grounds on which the order was made..”\n\n \n\nThe Court also reaffirmed the rights of Legislators to speech and debate protection from arrest while Congress was in session.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
984043
i'm not that familiar with the story, except that it is about witch hunting in a town. this quote, whoever says it, is someone begging Thomas not to get involved in witch craft. is it his wife? that would make sense, that she's begging her husband not to get in it because the town (who was full of people paranoid about witch craft) would charge them with the crime.
218888
im not sure if hes guilty of anything .\ni followed the story so long , and now it frustrates me !\ni cant understand why they dont know more .\ni believe they do thier just with holding it from the public .
860322
In a recent courtroom drama, accused murderer Jack Merridew was almost attacked by fellow defendant Ralph Grant following his statement in the investigation surrounding the deaths on the island. (Nether) boys are in custody.\n\n(the) courtroom environment that had begun in silence erupted into a flurry of activity when Mr. Merridew provided details into the deaths of some of the boys which provoked an outburst by Mr. Grant. He got up from his seating screaming, “You’re such a liar!” His lawyer, Will Hayden, tried to calm him down. Mr. Grant flew out of his chair in a rage and could hardly be stopped. Running to the stand, intending to attack Mr. Merridew but being restrained by the police in time. \n\nsounds great to me! A worthy =)
1091022
It's when Mr Cunningham used other methods to repay Atticus for helping him with a court matter previously because he had no money to pay Atticus.He paid Atticus with hickory nuts and some other things he grew on his farm.\nThe doctor in To kill a Mockingbird also does that.He charges people two bushels of potatoes(or something like that) for the delivery of a baby.
25933
It is a book by Dan Brown drawing upon the assumption that Christ had children by Mary Magdalade and that the Church tried to bury this fact by denying this was ever true. It's story protagonist is Prof Robert Langdon who stumbles into the controversy when a curator in the Louvre was killed and he found a connection to this mystery which he has to solve with the dead man's daughter Sophie. Tom Hanks will be staring in a movie by the same name this year.
291662
Talk about how the evidence obviously proves Tom Robinson wrong...
1130
Yes.\n\nTo Kill a Mockingbird is a 1960 novel by Harper Lee, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1961. It was made into an Academy Award-winning motion picture starring Gregory Peck by director Robert Mulligan in 1962. A coming-of-age story, it is told from the point of view of Jean Louise "Scout" Finch, the young daughter of Atticus Finch, an educated lawyer in Maycomb, Alabama, a small town in the deep South of the United States. She is accompanied by her brother Jem and their mutual friend Dill.\n\nTruman Capote was a lifelong friend of childhood neighbor Lee, and allegedly was the inspiration for Dill's character in her best-seller. Capote frequently implied that he himself had written a considerable portion of her novel, and some have said he ghosted the entire novel. At least one person—Pearl Kazin Bell, an editor at Harper's— has gone on record as believing his assertions were true.\n\nThe title of the book is taken from Atticus's advice to his children about firing their air rifles at birds: "Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". The blue jay is a very common bird, and is often perceived as a bully and a pest, whereas mockingbirds do nothing but "sing their hearts out for us". Metaphorically, several of the book's characters can be seen as "mockingbirds", attacked despite doing nothing but good. The mockingbird represents innocence, and to kill one is to metaphorically kill innocence. Note that the protagonists are also named after birds: Tom Robinson and the Finch family. However, "Finch" was also Lee's mother's maiden name.\n\nHarper Lee stated, "To get the ideas for the book I used recent events in my time like the Scottsboro Trials." (Harper Lee, Book Review, 1964)\n\nThe events of this book's publication and the following film are also subjects of the 2005 film Capote starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote and Catherine Keener as Harper Lee. It is also an excellent film and will likely be considered in one category or another for an Academy Award.
616765
I swore never to read again after To Kill a Mockingbird gave me no useful advice on killing mockingbirds! It did teach me not to judge a man based on the color of his skin, but what good does that do me?\n\n\nLMAO
790911
Yes, I do.  He's thirsting for the spotlight again.  And since it has been ruled that any money coming from the use of his name can't be used to pay off the wrongful damage suit, he's free and clear to seek to make big money again.  I think anyone that buys that man's book is an idiot.  Wow, he sure spent a lot of time finding the "real" murderers, as he claimed he would do hasn't he?  He's despicable.
435756
No no no.  They have to get out of prison in order to prove Lincoln was framed.  Goverment conspiracies and such.  What exactly is "The Company" that the vice president is involved in.  And why did they fake her brother's death?  And why was it specifically Linc they wanted out of the way?  And of course, they'll be looking for everybody after they escape.  Sort of a Fugitive type thing.  There's plenty of intrigue to keep this show around for awhile and let us enjoy our favorite convict brothers.
1086451
To Kill a Mocking Bird (by Harper Lee) is written as from the perspective of an eight-year old girl - Scout.  \n\nAt this stage in the book, a new teacher, Miss Caroline Fisher, has already told Scout that her father should stop teaching her to read (although Scout is self-taught).  Miss Caroline and Scout were obviously on a collision course of sorts.\n\nAfter asking everyone who is having lunch at school to place their lunch at the front, Miss Caroline realises that Walter Cunningham has not brought his forward.  She pretty much forces him to say he had forgotten it, and then proceeds to offer him a quarter in order for him to buy his lunch - with the proviso that he returns the quarter the following day.  The Cunninghams are dirt poor farm people, and Walter never brings lunch to school, and certainly could never repay cash to Miss Caroline, so she has to keep prompting him to come and get the quarter.  He won't budge.  Everyone else is local and knows the circumstances of Walter's family ... and uneasily they say:\n\n"Go on and tell her, Scout".\n\n"I turned round and saw most of the town people and the entire bus delegation looking at me.  Miss Caroline and I had conferred twice already, and they were looking at me in the innocent assurance that familiarity breeds understanding."\n\n++++++++++\n\nI hope the above is of help.
512411
Since Tom is a lot older than Katie, I question him as being the strange one more than her. I think she is so enamored by him she can't see what a nut he is. There was an interview with the Scientology's representative and they said because Nicolle fell away from the Church there was no way there marriage could continue. He is really hung on Scientology and she had to join to be with him.
369964
I believe it was out of respect for the defendent.  I don't believe the defendent had a jacket on at the trial.  The symbolism throughout the movie was portraying Atticus as a man of higher authority.  The camera angle always was looking up at him.  I think when he took the jacket off he wanted to be thought of as being on the defendents level, not better than everyone else.
1000300
I honestly don't know the answer.  However since Traficant is now in prison I would take anything he said with more than a grain of salt.