Gideon V. Wainwright 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.

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

Case 2 is an appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge C. F. Wall on appellant

Did the state court's failure to appoint a lawyer for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,

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

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

Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona (397-99, 464-67 B). The Gideon case presented the issue of whether states were required to provide counsel to criminal defendants (398B). Prior to the Gideon case, the Supreme Court held in Betts v. Brady that states were not required to provide counsel for indigent defendants who make such a request (397-98B). In a unanimous decision, Warren and the other Supreme Court justices voted to overrule Betts and found that the Bill of Rights applied to states thereby requiring the appointment of counsel to indigent defendants (399B). Warren's vote in the Gideon decision demonstrated the exchange from his prior attitudes about protecting the public during his murder prosecution of Frank Conner in the Point Lobos case by, at a minimum, denying Conner access to a lawyer after his arrest for his new attitude which required all criminal defendants to be given

system of codes and laws meant to be against the African Americans or of other races) to spread across the country. Rules were also conducted against African Americans to vote. Even though the law said that things and places had to be equal, this did not fall into that category. However, after a long fight, Plessy v. Ferguson was brought down when the Supreme Court held the Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In the Gideon V. Wainwright case of 1963, a huge historical impact is credited with this case because now basically any defendant has the right to an attorney even if they cannot afford it or not. This legacy has had an impact to not only the defendants in court but to the American criminal justice system as well. The right to an appointed

States’ rights vs federal power is an enduring issue that has effected many court cases. The right to have “assistance of counsel in defense,” is ones constitutional right, even in a lower class case. To begin with, June 5, 1962, Gideon was charged for pool hall burglary, and was not appointed an attorney even when confronting the judge. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison.

Subsequently, in 1972 Argersinger v. Hamlin held that defendants were required legal counsel when faced with incarceration from a misdemeanor or felony conviction (Smith, 2004). Following these Supreme Court decisions, most state and local governments had to develop new systems of indigent defense or modify the old ones to keep up with the number of clients (Wice, 2005). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, other cases have challenged the Supreme Court application of the right to counsel. Currently, all defendants are given the right to counsel at all stages of the criminal justice process, including during trial, appeals, and even during police interrogation.

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).

Gideon’s Trumpet is a movie explaining how a man named Clarence Earl Gideon made a change in the judicial process by giving defendants who can’t afford a lawyer, the right to have one. Gideon was convicted of breaking into a pool room and stealing some wine, beer, and some Coca-Cola but he said that he didn’t. He went to trial and was found guilty. He wrote to the Supreme Court and told them he didn’t have a lawyer and that it wasn’t a fair trial. After two years the Supreme Court let him have another trial with a lawyer of his choice. Gideon was put back on trial and proved himself not