The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Brief
Gideon v. Wainwright’s Case
Rules that were applicable
Implications
Summary
Chart
Works Cited

Brief

Gideon v. Wainwright is a notable case in the United State’s Supreme Court. It is a problem that involves the constitutional right to counsel, in all criminal cases in the US, through the cause of the fourteenth amendment. In this case the court confirmed that all indigent defendants had the right to counsel. This included arraignments and trials. Powell v. Alabama, which was an earlier case, had already passed this resolution. However, it was only applicable to cases that involved death penalties (McNeese 62).

The Supreme Court also allowed the United States to provide attorneys to various criminal cases in Betts v. Brandy. All criminal cases, since then, would be argued out by attorneys appointed by the government. After a period of about twenty years, Gideon was the first person to be denied the Right to Counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright’s Case

On the night of 3rd June, 1961, there was a burglary in Panama City, at the Harbor Pool Room. An eye witness later reported that he had seen Mr. Clarence Earl Gideon leaving that room at around 5.30 in the morning. The police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon basing on this accusation. They searched him and found him with $25.5 coins in his pockets. They charged Gideon in the court of justice with forcefully entering the room with an ill intention of petty larceny. In Powell v. Alabama, the court had made a decision confirming the association of the right to counsel with the Bill of Rights. This would be a basic right from then. Elsewhere, in Betts v. Brandy, the Court had adjusted this right slightly. The modification would allow the court to investigate whether or not an imperative need for counsel existed, depending on the magnitude of the case. However, after twenty years, the court had received several cases, and none of them ruled that there was no need to counsel.

When Gideon appeared in Court, he pleaded for the right to counsel, claiming that he was extremely poor, but the Court turned down his request (Fridell 99). Gideon thus was his own counsel, conducting a self-defense case in court, to prove his level of innocence. Gideon did not have any experience in court cases. He found this to be an extremely difficult task. He had many random witnesses who did not give any concrete evidence that the court could use to prove his innocence (McNeese 96). The Jury found him guilty and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment.

This was the maximum sentence he could have ever received. When he got into prison, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing in suit of Florida’s Department of Corrections Secretary. He filed a case of writ of habeas corpus. This was in Florida’s Supreme Court. However, his request was rejected. He wrote a letter to the Supreme Court using the prison’s letter-head, through which he would sue this secretary. He said that his right to counsel and his sixth amendment right faced violation during his case. The Court then gave him a chance to use an attorney from Washington D.C who argued his case.

Rules that were applicable

The fundamental rule that was significant in this case was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In judging the first case, against Gideon, the Court based its decision on the evidence that the police had found, and the claims of the accuser’s attorney. However, when Gideon appealed the case, the jury made a judgment basing on the right to counsel. Under federal law, the defendant can ignore his right to counsel if he proves to the court that he has a sound knowledge of the case at hand.

Implications

The Court gave Gideon the chance to pick a lawyer to reason out his case. Florida’s Supreme Court, on the other hand, immediately hired state attorneys to work in all its states courts (Fridell 104). Gideon thus opened the door for cases, which created more constitutional rights to protect the defendants in court cases. The Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, ruled that all persons in custody must be given an opportunity to understand their rights. In 2002, the Supreme Court made a rule requiring all cases to enjoy the right to counsel.

Summary

The Sixth amendment of the United States Constitution does not recognize capital and non-capital cases; it provides that all cases regardless of their magnitude have the right to counsel, apart from cases where the defendant decides to waive their right to counsel. It was hence right of the Supreme Court to appoint an attorney from Washington D.C to argue for Gideon.

Chart

The first case took place in the district magistrate’s court, which is the lowest rank of the court. Gideon was found guilty and arrested. However, he later appealed to the court of appeal, which declined his request. He wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, which decided to consider his appeal and listen to him. All these were taking place as he remained in remand. Below is a chart.

Works Cited

Fridell, Ron. Gideon V. Wainwright: The Right to Free Counsel. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2006. Print.

McNeese, Tim. Gideon V. Wainwright: The Right to Free Legal Counsel, Great Supreme Court Decisions. London: InfoBase Publishing, 2007. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!