Gideon Case Summary

After the Supreme Court of Florida rejected his petition, he hand wrote a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that it hear his case. The Court allowed him to file it in forma pauperis, which meant that the Court would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition. Gideon’s case was considered. The writ that Gideon wrote was allowed and he was given an attorney and was retried. His attorney for retrial was Abe Fortas, who was later appointed to Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Gideon was found innocent of the charges and set free, but what Gideon's petition to the Supreme Court did established that every person convicted of a crime would be granted an attorney, even he could not afford one.

4. Issue/s: Was it an error for the trial judge to accept a guilty plea without confirmation from the defendant that the plea was understood and voluntary?

Fifty-seven year after, the 14th amendment was used in the Gitlow v. New York (1925) case. Gitlow was a free-speech case and it was a case where a state was restricting Gitlow’s free speech, which is always been given a free

This statement encapsulates why the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment found it necessary to include that, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Bingham’s reading of the Constitution already incorporated this point, but Rogers’ certainly did not, so by placing it in the Fourteenth Amendment, the framers ensured beyond all doubt that the right of all citizens to equal protection of the laws would be part of any subsequent reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

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).

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

The ninth amendment states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html).The fourteenth and the most important in this case states in Section 1 that,

13th and 14th amendments. Plessy lost in the court of Judge John Ferguson and appealed to the

The court decision on Roe Vs Wade violated the due process clause of 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment says that no states are allowed to take away the privacy rights of its citizens. The court said that the taxes law violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

The panel asks if a complaint was filed against the judge. Since one wasn’t the panel now tells Mr. Mason that since they didn’t feel he was so unethical or unfair to file a complaint but instead filed an open public brief accusing the judge of being unethical. The panel then states to Mr. Mason the steps he should have taken if he felt the judge was unethical, by filing in the Judicial Qualifications Commission and move to recuse if they feel he is unfair.

Gideon requested that the court needs to appoint him a lawyer, which was quickly denied by the court because under the Florida law, the law only permits appointment of counsel to poor defendants charged with capital offense. Because of this, Gideon represented himself and was later found guilty and charged to five years in prison. Gideon later wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court stating that his rights were violated

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

The 6th Amendment also provides an accused individual with the right to counsel, or a lawyer. While the interpretation of this right has been debated, it is now understood that in all cases where conviction would result in imprisonment, the court must appoint a lawyer for the defense. In Gideon vs. Wainwright, the court convicted Clarence Earl Gideon of larceny without providing him with counsel. The court said that under Florida state law, the court was only required to appoint a lawyer to the defendant in capital cases. Gideon argued that the 6th Amendment guaranteed a lawyer to all defendants, no matter what crime had been committed. The Supreme Court agreed with Gideon, stating that the right to counsel applied to all individuals, not just those who could afford it. The “right to

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).