Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Summary

The issue in this case is should the state law provide appointment of council for defendants if they aren’t able to afford it or should they only provide appointment of council for defendants

Clarence Gideon was convicted of a crime he did not commit. He was his own lawyer because he didn’t have enough money to get one. He defended himself in court but failed. He was sent to jail for five years but only served two, he was sent to jail because the jury believed he burglirized a pool room took a pint of wine, some beers, cola, and money from the jutbox and cigar matieche. A man named Lester Wade said he saw him take the things and go into a taxe cab. After Mr. Gideon was sentenced to jail he wrote to the supreme court, and told them his trial was treated unfairly. They sent his letter to Florida and they took a look at it and took it to court. Clarence Gideon was successful and help many people get out of jail or tried again with

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon stated, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel”.

There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and

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.

Jon Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, which was a misdemeanor in his state of Florida. This charge carried a 6 month sentence with a $1,000 fine. During his bench trial, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney. This called into question if the 6th and 14th Amendments guarantee a right to counsel to defendants accused of committing misdemeanors. In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that no matter how petty the crime, the state was obligated to provide the accused with counsel. This is significant because previously, under the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling, only those accused of serious crimes were granted the right to counsel. However, now everyone is granted this

Gideon’s case certainly is a great improvement in the law and a landmark in the Supreme Court history because it overturned previous ruling of Betts v. Brady and further extends the right to counsel for all defendants. Even though it seems like simple as seeking the right to an attorney, many legal issues were hidden behind and challenged to the legal system. It proclaims the right to counsel as a fundamental right to all defendants and applies to all states; moreover, it also defines the role of federal government in mandating the state in criminal proceedings.

Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the Orange County Public Defender’s office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office’s attorneys. But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S.,

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.

Miranda is specific to the right to counsel and against self-incrimination - 6th and 5th Amendments respectively - and is used in criminal proceedings rather than administrative matters (Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

A Supreme Court had held in another trial in 1942 claimed that an ordinary person could do defend himself or herself without legal representation. A court-appointed lawyer was required only if the defendant had mental or physical problems or health related problems that could excuse them the lawyer, if the case was unusually complicated, or the case involved "special circumstances." But, the problem was that none of these exceptions applied to Gideon. The Florida trial court had ruled that his request for a counsel and lawyer was denied. The biggest problem was that Gideon knew his amendments and found that his rights were being violated to not be represented with a lawyer.

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

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).

The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Miranda's favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: