Gideon V Wainwright Essay

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.

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?

The main challenge Gideon needed to overcome was the regulations instituted by the 1942 court case Betts v. Brady. Betts v. Brady established that only in special circumstances were impoverished criminals entitled to counsel. These special circumstances often required some form of mental or physical disability in which Clarence Earl Gideon did not have. The courts had to then examine if legal counsel was an essential right to due process.

     In JOHNSON v. ZERBST (1928) the court read the 6th Amendment to require the appointment of counsel for all indigent federal criminal defendants.

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Florida. When he went to trial, he attempted to get an attorney to help him in court to get his crime reduced to a misdemeanor. The judge denied the attempt and he was left to fend for himself. Clarence Gideon was later proven guilty. He filed a habeas corpus petition that his denied attempt to an attorney was unlawful. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Gideon sent his petition, in 1963, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case, also known as the Gideon vs. Wainwright case, and decided that under the 6th amendment, the defendant is allowed to receive counsel when the defendant is being tried for a serious crime. The Gideon

[There are several factors that contribute to the excess numbers of cases in the court system today. One of the influences is the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, a landmark case, which ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment states will provide counsel to individuals charged with a crime who cannot afford to pay for an attorney themselves. Prior to this addition, Judges decided cases and the cases moved much faster through the system. However, the addition of lawyers to each case and the need for trials grew, in turn the speed of the system slowed.

It is my belief that police should be allowed to freely contact defendants and it is the defendant’s responsibility to invoke their rights to remain silent and rights to counsel on a case by case basis. This paper will explain the difference between a persons Mirandized counsel rights versus their sixth amendment counsel rights, different Supreme Court cases over the years that have demonstrated the court’s position on suspects being questioned by police, and how these decisions are affecting the world of law enforcement today.

Wainwright case was a landmark in the evolution of the criminal justice system as well as the evolution of person rights. Although it is a common phrase, the fact “innocent until proven guilty” is not always enforced in the criminal justice system. This leaves room for people awaiting trial to endure mistreatment, whether they are guilty or not. The mistreatment of these people can sometimes leave room for an innocent person be charged due to the lack of resources provided. Before the Gideon v. Wainwright case, it was not common practice for courts to appoint attorneys for the defendant. Although it was easier to charge someone with a crime they committed without a lawyer present, it also left room for innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not commit. This also raises the question of: is it worth innocent lives to catch the majority of guilty criminals? The sixteenth amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to …have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. Due to the fact that it is not explicitly stated that the court is required to provide the defendant a lawyer, it was hardly common practice to do so. After the Gideon v. Wainwright case, it became more common for the court to appoint lawyers to defendants. This change in practice continued the positive evolution of individual rights, even those being convicted of

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.

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.

Wainwright case was when a man, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of felony in Florida state court: broke through and illegally went into a poolroom with the objective to commit a misdemeanour offence. He went to court without a lawyer and requested that the court appoint him one. However, Florida state law states that an attorney may only be appointed to a low in poverty defendant in capital cases, as a result the trial court didn’t appoint. Now, he had to represent himself in trial. He was sentenced to five years in prison after confirmed guilty for felony. In the Florida Supreme Court Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition that argued that the trial court’s decision contravened his rights to be represented by counsel. In response to this action, habeas corpus relief has been denied by the Florida Supreme

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.

Gideon v. Wainwright led to the reconsideration of a prior case known as Betts v. Brady. The Supreme Court ruled that states had to grant legal counsel to any defendant who could not afford their own legal counsel through the sixth amendment.

Fifty-five years later, and there is still no universal right to counsel in civil cases. The Supreme Court has failed to utilize opportunities to make a ruling similar to Gideon in civil cases, despite the presence of similar issues. In Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Services, the court held that indigent litigants only had a right to appointed counsel when they risk losing their “physical liberty”. Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Services, 452 U.S. 18, 23 (1981). In other words, absent a threat of incarceration or extreme circumstances, there is not right to counsel. Lee Shevell, Civil Gideon: The Poor Man’s Fight, 16 Public Interest Law Reporter 32–37 (2010).