Gideon Vs. Wainwright Essay

In 1966, Gary Duncan was charged in Louisiana with simple battery, a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison and a three hundred dollar fine. Duncan requested a jury trial, but at the time, Louisiana granted jury trials only to cases punishable by execution or imprisonment at hard labor, and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial had not yet been incorporated against the states. Duncan’s request was denied. He was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a ten-dollar fine. Duncan appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case. Duncan then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, asserting that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteed his right to a jury trial.

Gideon’s Trumpet is a great book in that instead of just babbling on about how writs are handled by the Supreme Court, the author Anthony Lewis, takes the book step by step with the Gideon case, making it less tedious to read and more understandable. I thought that the book was extremely well written, easy to understand with good definitions. I recommend Gideon's Trumpet to anyone who wants to learn about the court systems and how one person can change the course of time and law.

In 1964, after Miranda 's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person? (Supreme Court)

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?

False, The Supreme Court has said that an indigent person accused of a crime, even a minor misdemeanor, has the right to be represented by counsel at public expense.

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.

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.

Fortas’ main obstacle with the Gideon case was proving that counsel was necessary to Justices Frankfurter and Black who symbolically represented two differing judicial philosophies. Justice Frankfurter was often associated with the phrase “Judicial self restraint”. His ideology preferred judicial matters to be solved within congress and the states. Frankfurter believed that relying too much on judges would hinder the freedoms of the people and corrupt the nation’s concept of democracy. Justice John Marshall

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Clarance Earl Gideon was arrested on charges of breaking into a bar. He could not afford a lawyer and was refused an appointed one. After defending himself in court, Gideon was sentenced to five years. He filed a petition to the Florida Supreme Court claiming that his right to legal counsel based on the Sixth Amendment was violated. After his petition was denied, he turned to the United States Supreme

That day, the justices honed in on the Fifth Amendment aspects of the case, which pleased John Flynn to no end. The last man to present a position in the case before the court was Thurgood Marshall, whose personal opinions were diametrically opposed to the position of his employer, the U.S. government.

According to the Gideon’s case, the Florida court denied his request because the court of Florida only could appoint counsel to the defendant who is charged with a capital offense under the laws of the state of Florida and obviously, Gideon’s condition did not apply to it. This rejection was reflected to the ruling of Betts v. Brady, which resulted the right to counsel would be depending on states based on the circumstances even Sixth Amendment did mention the right to counsel. But, we should give full priority to the counsel and clarify it as fundamental rights for all people. Therefore, federal government or the Constitution should able to ensure people’s right in the criminal proceedings as how it applies to Gideon’s case as

From his prison cell Clearance Earl Gideon composed a petition that despite the search of a man with lack of education no thing big authorized interest when at the time of the petitioner’s trial. Mr. Gideon asked the lower court for assistance of a legal adviser the court denied this assistance from the seeker informed the court that the maximum court of justice produced a decision. The aftermath that all civilians convicted of felony crime should have a legal advisor. The lower court ignored the plea. Every year thousands of pauper petitions like these are sent to the maximum court of justice to the supreme court less are at any point heard but this petition hurt a responsible line.

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).