1963 Supreme Court Case: Gideon V. Wainwright

The originally Bill of Rights protected the rights of citizens from infringement by the federal government, but made no mention of the states. The Fourteen Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, protected citizenship and individual rights from infringement by state governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the United States Supreme Court began to apply the most important rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights against the states. This process began in the early 1900s and is known as the doctrine of selective incorporation. Duncan versus Louisiana was the landmark case in which the court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial against the states.

This led Gideon to file a petition for Habeas Corpus with the supreme court in Florida. His petition stated that he had been imprisoned illegally.

Because of this language, the Fourteenth Amendment appears to be — and to some extent is — simply the application of the Fifth Amendment, and through selective incorporation, the rest of the Bill of Rights. To that end, the Fourteenth Amendment possesses a fortuitous expansion to the simple due process right: the right to equal protection of the laws. Laws that appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause thusly receive the same kind of scrutiny that other fundamental rights are given.

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

The foundation of modern right to counsel through court-appointed attorneys at the expense of the government for an indigent defendant accused of a serious crime was made possible by the ruling in a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

1.A law that restricts a fundamental right violates substantive due process unless it promotes a compelling or overriding state interest. TRUE

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.

On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary

were entitled to freedom by virtue. (Lawson, 1987, 21-29) Shortly after this he was found in court getting tried

Due process was also stated in the fifth amendment, however the difference with the fourteenth amendment was that it was not the state’s job to not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

After being sentenced Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court. Gideon claimed that his conviction was unconstitutional because he lacked a defense attorney at the trial. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition

states may not deny any person “life, liberty or property without due process of law”, and The

Gideon lost the case and was sentenced to prison for 5 years. During his 2 years in prison, he learned more about the law and came to the conclusion that his rights were violated. This led Gideon to file a petition for Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court in Florida. His petition stated that his amendment rights were violated and he deserved to be represented in court.

The Supreme Court determined that Gerald Gault was denied his Constitutional rights based on the 6th Amendment (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). The 6th Amendment was ratified in 1789 and provided the citizens of our country with rights based on criminal prosecution (Staff, 2010). The amendment provides the defendant with a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers, the notification of the charges against them, legal confrontation of the accuser, accessibility of witnesses in a jury trial and defense counsel. After his arrest, Gerald was detained in a juvenile detention center with no notification provided to his parents (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). When his parents finally located him at the center, they arrived