Im not sure but I want to try to help you though so between B. Or C.
They wanted to stay nurtral to make more money.
According to the sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Sandra was arrested and charged. This is thus a criminal prosecution and the Sixth Amendment is clear, she has the right ot representation and the judge's actions are unconstitutional. The case Gideon v. Wainwright is a good example. This case involved a homeless man in Florida who was accused of burglary. His judge denied him the right of legal representation and the man had to represent himself. He was found guilty but appealed the sentence from his prison cell. The case was taken to the SCOTUS and the ruling was quite clear: State Courts have the legal obligation of respecting the constitutional rights of defendants in all criminal prosecutions. Actually, Clarence Darrow, one of the greatest attorneys in the history of the USA took an attorney when he was accused of a criminal offence. Therefore being "smart enough" is irrelevant; all defendants in all criminal prosecutions have a right to legal representation.
Fidel Castro took power in Cuba in January, 1, in the year 1959.
In 1951 Cuba’s power was taken by General Fulgencio Batista, the dictatorship was opposed by many groups. Fidel Castro fights against his government in Cuba began in 1953, almost 6 years earlier before Castro's victory. The revolutionary movement acts lead by Fidel Castro only took the power out of Batista in 1959.
