answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)

Answer

Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark US Supreme Court case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. In this case, the Court ruled emphatically that indigent defendants were entitled to court-appointed lawyers at critical stages of prosecution, including arraignment and trial.

An earlier case, Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) had already extended that right to state defendants in capital (death penalty) cases, but the Supreme Court later allowed the states to exercise case-by-case discretion with regard to providing attorneys for other serious criminal offenses in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942).

Explanation

Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who had been homeless most of his life. He developed a record of petty crime as a juvenile, and continued as an adult habitual offender. Gideon had been convicted and incarcerated in Texas and Missouri prisons on charges of robbery, burglary, larceny, escape, and theft. Gideon was nearly illiterate, poor, and had little formal education.

Sometime between midnight and 6:00 am on June 3, 1961, someone broke into Ira Strickland's Bay Harbor Pool Room, near Panama City, FL. The burglar smashed a window, pried open the cigarette and soda machines, and left with approximately $5.00 in change, and at least one bottle of wine.

Henry Cook, who lived in the neighborhood, told police he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon exit the Pool Hall around 5:30 am, carrying a bottle of wine. The police located Gideon, found change in his pockets, and arrested him on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny, a felony.

When Gideon appeared before the Florida court, he requested a court-appointed attorney, but the judge denied his request because Florida law only required the state provide counsel for capital offenses. The court record shows Gideon objected on the grounds that the Supreme Court said he had a Sixth Amendment right to legal representation. The judge refused to accommodate Gideon's request, so the defendant was forced to represent himself (pro se).

Although Gideon attempted to defend himself, he was unable to discredit any witnesses or weaken the Prosecution's case. As a result, he was found guilty and sentenced to the maximum penalty - five years in prison. Gideon began serving his sentence in August 1961.

Using the prison library for reference, Gideon filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court, but his petition was denied. He then wrote a six-page letter to the Supreme Court on prison letterhead, seeking to appeal against the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and appointed future Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas as Gideons counsel.

Supreme Court Decision

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court held that its opinion in Betts v. Brady, (1942), which allowed the states to apply the Sixth Amendment selectively under the "special circumstances" doctrine, was unconstitutional. Betts essentially said the appointment of counsel was not a fundamental right; in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court overturned the earlier precedent and asserted that "Lawyers are necessities, not luxuries." The ruling in this case incorporated the Right to Counsel Clause to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause, finally establishing that even indigent defendants deserved the benefit of legal representation.

Gideon was not the first case in which the Warren Court expressed doubt about the ruling in Betts. Reid v. Covert,354 US 1 (1957) foreshadowed the decision to enforce the Bill of Rights against entities previously exempt from protecting certain fundamental rights. In Covert, the Supreme Court held that treaties with other countries did not revoke constitutional protections for US citizens, when the Court held that military spouses could not be convicted under military jurisdiction (except under certain exceptional circumstances), and could not be deprived of their constitutional rights, even if living overseas.

Another case earlier case, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 US 570 (1961), overturned a contradictory Georgia law that denied people deemed incompetent to testify on their own behalf "effective assistance of counsel."

In Gideon, the Court essentially held that all laymen (non-lawyers) were incompetent to defend themselves at trial:

"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."

Gideon's conviction was overturned, and the case was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court so they could make arrangements for a new trial. Gideon was represented at the second trial by attorney W. Fred Turner, who successfully discredited the prosecution's witnesses, demonstrating there was no evidence against his client. The jury deliberated only an hour before acquitting Gideon of the charges.

Epilogue

The state of Florida immediately complied with the Supreme Court's decision, and hired public defenders to work in its 16 state circuit courts.

Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) set the stage for later cases that expanded constitutional protections for the accused. For example, Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), provided that law enforcement officials must explicitly notify those in custody of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

In 1972, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right of indigent and low-income defendants to receive court-appointed counsel applied to every case of felony offense, as well as to any case in which the defendant is actually incarcerated, even if the crime is classified as a misdemeanor, per Scott v. Illinois,440 U.S. 367 (1979).

In 2002, the Supreme Court further extended the right to counsel to any case where imprisonment is a possibility, even if the sentence is suspended, in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 US 654 (2002).

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)

In Gault, the Supreme Court extended the Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel to indigent juveniles.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979)

Scott represented a broadening, not limitation, of the standard set in Gideon v. Wainwright. Prior to this case, only felony defendants were given the right to court-appointed counsel, but indigent people guilty of misdemeanors, even those whose crimes were punishable by incarceration, were denied the right to counsel unless they could somehow acquire the services of a private attorney.

In Scott, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right of indigent and low-income defendants to receive court-appointed counsel applied to every case of felony offense, as well as to any charge resulting in a sentence, even if the crime is classified as a misdemeanor.

In 2002, the Supreme Court further extended the right to court-appointed counsel to any case where imprisonment is a possibility, even if the sentence is suspended, in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 US 654 (2002).

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is the case that the United States supreme court held that the state must provide counsel to those who cannot afford to hire one for themselves.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

One applicable case is Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979).

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

Gideon v. Wainwright

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What US Supreme Court case gave the right to counsel for indigent defendants in state criminal cases?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

What case focused on a defendant's lack of access to counsel because the defendant was indigent?

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)The U.S. Supreme Court took the first major step on the Sixth Amendment issue of right to counsel by holding that state courts must provide counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases.


Significance of faretta v California?

was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.


What was the ruling of the Gideon v. Wainwright case?

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)The US Supreme Court held that indigent defendants in criminal cases have a Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel. It pretty much was the cause of the establishment of the Public Defender system in American courts.For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.


How did the US Supreme Court incorporate part of the Bill of Rights to the States in Gideon v. Wainwright 1963?

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark US Supreme Court case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. In this case, the Court ruled emphatically that indigent defendants were entitled to court-appointed lawyers at critical stages of prosecution, including arraignment and trial.An earlier case, Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) had already extended that right to state defendants in capital (death penalty) cases, but the Supreme Court later allowed the states to exercise case-by-case discretion with regard to providing attorneys for other serious criminal offenses in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942).For more information, see Related Questions, below.


What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Escobedo v Illinois in 1964?

United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.

Related questions

What case focused on a defendant's lack of access to counsel because the defendant was indigent?

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)The U.S. Supreme Court took the first major step on the Sixth Amendment issue of right to counsel by holding that state courts must provide counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases.


What US supreme court case established the right to counsel for indigent defendants in federal court proceedings?

Gideon v. Wainwright


Significance of faretta v California?

was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.


The approach to providing legal services to indigent defendants where private attorneys are selected from a list and reimbursed by the state is the what system?

Assigned Counsel


What Amendment provides counsel to indigent defendants?

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT! In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932),the Supreme Court ruled that "in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him.


What is the precedent in betts vs brady?

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. It was later famously overruled by Gideon v. Wainright.


Did Gideon v Wainwright deal with speedy trail issues?

No. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) dealt with the right of criminal defendants to the Sixth Amendment protection of legal counsel, even if the defendant was indigent and couldn't afford an attorney.


What new policy was established by the US Supreme Court's landmark Gideon vs Wainwright ruling?

The US Supreme Court set a precedent requiring states to provide court-appointed counsel to indigent criminal defendants by applying the Sixth Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.ExplanationThe US Supreme Court overturned the earlier decision in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942), which held states weren't required to provide court-appointed counsel at trial, and failure to do so didn't violate a defendant's Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) the Supreme Court unanimously held that states had to provide free legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants. The Court asserted that poor people were being deprived of their Sixth Amendment constitutional right to an attorney, which applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The condition of poverty placed defendants in a position of not receiving the same opportunity for a fair trial (due process) as people who could afford to hire an attorney, which was unconstitutional.


What did Gideon v Wainwright the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a state court had he right to?

a court-appointed attorney if they could not afford one. This ruling established the right to counsel for indigent defendants and extended the protections of the Sixth Amendment to state proceedings.


What was precedent before Gideon v. Wainwright?

The precedent followed prior to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) was established in Betts v. Brady,316 US 455 (1942), which held the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause didn't require states to provide court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants except in death penalty cases. The Supreme Court reversed this decision in Gideon because access to counsel was necessary to protect a defendant's fundamental constitutional rights.


What was the ruling of the Gideon v. Wainwright case?

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)The US Supreme Court held that indigent defendants in criminal cases have a Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel. It pretty much was the cause of the establishment of the Public Defender system in American courts.For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.


Gideon v. wainwright said that a person has a right to an attorney whether or not he or she cab afford one?

Yes. Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) specifically prescribed that the states had to provide free counsel to indigent criminal defendants facing the possibility of jail time. In the opinion of the court, Justice Black wrote: "in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him."The key to this is "criminal defendants" (who are facing jail time); it doesn't apply to defendants/respondents in civil cases.For more information, see Related Questions, below.