Case Study : Gideon V. Wainwright

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the case begins with Gideon arrest in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who was in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes. On January 3, 1961, 51-year-old Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Giedion was charged with a felony in the state of Florida. Gideon appeared in the Florida court and informed the judge that he would like to be appointed counsel because he could not afford one. The judge denied Gideon’s request to be appointed an attorney. The courts stated that under Florida law the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to be appointed counsel is when

This case started with the 1961 arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon. He was charged with breaking and entering in a Panama City, Florida, pool hall and stealing money from the vending machine. At trial, Gideon could not afford an attorney and asked for one to be appointed to represent him. The judge proceeded to tell Gideon that the state of Florida only appointed attorneys to indignant defendents charged with that may result in the death penalty if convicted. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison.

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Florida. When he went to trial, he attempted to get an attorney to help him in court to get his crime reduced to a misdemeanor. The judge denied the attempt and he was left to fend for himself. Clarence Gideon was later proven guilty. He filed a habeas corpus petition that his denied attempt to an attorney was unlawful. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Gideon sent his petition, in 1963, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case, also known as the Gideon vs. Wainwright case, and decided that under the 6th amendment, the defendant is allowed to receive counsel when the defendant is being tried for a serious crime. The Gideon

The supreme court state that the constitution needs the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. In June 1961, a burglary happened at the bay harbor pool room in Pana city, Florida. Clarence Earl Gideon was being arrested for been found nearby with a small amount of wine. Gideon did not have money to hire a judge and requested Florida circuit judge to appoint one saying that everyone is eligible to a lawyer according to the sixth amendment. The circuit court refused his request. Gideon who was not an attorney defended himself poorly and was found guilty of entering petty robbery. While in prison Gideon started studying law with the belief

In 1963, the Constitution expects the states to offer defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with severe offenses who cannot pay for lawyers themselves, was the Supreme Court ruling for the Gideon vs Wainwright case. Now let’s rewind back to Clarence Earl Gideon’s 1961 arrest. Gideon was accused of breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida and stealing money out of the hall’s vending machines.

Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer so he asked if the Florida Circuit judge, Judge Robert McCrary, Jr., would appoint one for him because he pointed out that the sixth amendment guarantees everyone a right

According to the Gideon’s case, the Florida court denied his request because the court of Florida only could appoint counsel to the defendant who is charged with a capital offense under the laws of the state of Florida and obviously, Gideon’s condition did not apply to it. This rejection was reflected to the ruling of Betts v. Brady, which resulted the right to counsel would be depending on states based on the circumstances even Sixth Amendment did mention the right to counsel. But, we should give full priority to the counsel and clarify it as fundamental rights for all people. Therefore, federal government or the Constitution should able to ensure people’s right in the criminal proceedings as how it applies to Gideon’s case as

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

     The facts on which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are similar to the facts on Gideon. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that is was not

Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post-conviction remedy, Maddox filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of the

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

One of the main purposes of our judicial system is to produce fair results. This way the defendant is not convicted for something that they did not do. Although this is supposed to be the case, our society is set up in a way where the rich people have more of an advantage when it comes down to being provided with a lawyer than the poor. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, in 1963, the Supreme Court decided that to ensure fair trial, a counsel must be provided for the defendants that cannot afford one. Although the Sixth Amendment only says that someone has the right to a counsel, the purpose for a lawyer is to protect the innocent. This cannot happen if the lawyer does a poor job defending their client. This is why the Supreme Court should set a new precedent stating that everyone is entitled to a high quality defense. A high quality defense would look like someone who presents good arguments that helps back up a side. They are well prepared and knowledgeable about the case. Furthermore, they are well rounded people with good interpretation and speaking skills. Most importantly though, they are good listeners, patient, logical, observance, and open minded about the issue. With that, they have to be able to know how to deal with the issue and come up with alternatives.

Wainwright was unanimous. The right to a fair trial was fundamental under the United States Constitution and the guarantee of counsel was a vital part of it. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clark affirms that there is no distinction between capital and non-capital cases in the Sixth Amendment so counsel should be provided in every

3. Summarize the legal arguments raised by the (a) plaintiff and by the (b) defendant.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).