Case Study : Gideon V. Wainwright

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

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

* What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

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.

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

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

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

In Gideon v Wainwright (1963), the court dealt with the issue of right to counsel for non-capital and capital cases. The court was to determine whether states need to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not pay in both capital and non-capital offenses. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court held that the Sixth Amendment applied to all states by virtue of the 14th Amendment, implying that states had to provide counsel to defendants in state criminal trials involving serious criminal offenses. As a result of this decision, two significant issues were raised: the right to counsel as provided by the Sixth Amendment and the stages in the criminal justice system at which the defendant should be allowed counsel. These issues were based on the standards of effective counsel for purposes of establishing whether the right has been denied to the defendant (Pollak, 1979).

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 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.

Baird in 1853. This case determined that an attorney at public expense would be given to the defendant if they could not afford one. The outcome eventually led to the current amendment that an attorney would be provided for the defendant who could not afford one. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s pro bono groups of attorneys were started to represent defendants who could not afford lawyers. It was primarily a volunteer based program until the mid 1900’s. The Powell v. Alabama case decided that the right to counsel was required in all state proceedings. During the case African American boys were accused of rape and thrown into prison most were sentenced to death and did not have the right to counsel. However after many proceedings and changes in rights the boys were exonerated. In 1963 after the Bretts vs. Brady case it was determined that right to counsel would not extend to felony cases. The defendant was accused of robbery and was not able to afford an attorney. The case decision was overruled in another case in 1963 Gideon vs. Wainwright. Now a felon of any charges could receive counsel at the expense of the state. Over time this rights has grown into the idea that everyone defendant or victim deserves a fair trial and a fair chance of justice. There are countless cases leading up to the right of counsel that is place today. Including the right to a counsel that will give effort and effectiveness towards a

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 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).

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