Please help! Read through the following examples and determine whether the requirements of a speedy and public trial have been met, whether the right to a jury may have been violated, whether the right to confront your accuser may have been violated and whether the right to counsel has been appropriately honored. Please be sure to cite evidence to support your answer, e.g., specific court cases.

1) At trial for forgery, Mr. Zerax's attorney, Mr. Opal, argues that his client's 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated because of the activities of the police. After booking, the police required Mr. Zerax to provide a handwriting sample. Mr. Opal argues that he or another attorney should have been present during that process to ensure that it did not improperly implicate Mr. Zerax, and asks that the evidence gathered from that sample be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Is Mr. Opal's assertion correct? Why or why not?

2) At trial for domestic violence, the defendant Mr. White's attorney, Mr. Pepper, refuses to

argue on behalf of Mr. White that Mr. White was compelled to beat his wife because of the wife's failure to terminate an affair with the neighbor. Mr. Pepper considers this a nonfrivolous issue, but decides to exercise his professional judgment that it would be unwise to argue the rationale for the beating. Mr. White is convicted of domestic violence. On appeal, Mr. White argues that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated because Mr. Pepper was ineffective and failed to follow the directive of his client. Is Mr. White correct? Why or why not?

3) Ms. Daverson is on trial for sexual molestation of a child. Ms. Daverson has continued to have heated shouting debates with her court-appointed counsel, Mr. Dryer. It is clear that Ms. Daverson and Mr. Dryer have a contentious relationship and do not enjoy one another's company. Ms. Daverson is convicted of sexual molestation of a child. On appeal, Ms. Daverson argues that her 6th Amendment right to counsel has been violated because of her contentious relationship with Mr. Dryer. She further argues that it effectively made him ineffective as counsel. Is Ms. Daverson correct? Why or why not?

4) At trial, Ms. Fleckle argues that her 6th Amendment right to counsel has been violated because she was not allowed to contact an attorney during her roadside arrest for DUI. Ms. Fleckle argues that the DUI charge should be dropped because of the police's failure to provide access to an attorney.Is Ms. Fleckle correct? Why or why not?

5) Mr. Lanis is on trial for embezzlement. At trial, Mr. Lanis notices that there are only 10 jury members who have been empaneled. Mr. Lanis is convicted of embezzlement. On appeal, Mr. Lanis argues that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial has been violated because he should have been entitled to 12 jurors, not 10. Is Mr. Lanis's assertion correct? Why or why not?