Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case: Gideon V. Wainwright

Spending most of his young adulthood in and out of prisons for minor nonviolent crimes, Clarence Earl Gideon seemed like an unlikely victor when trying to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court Case, Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Earl Gideon, with the help of cases before him and his well trained attorney, successfully succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to accept his appeal and rule in his favor by persisting until he received the rights all American’s are granted by the United States Constitution. Clarence Earl Gideon had been convicted of many minor crimes throughout his life, but the crime that set the scene for the case Gideon v. Wainwright, was when Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the

Brady was another case that played a key role in the Supreme Court's rule in favor of Gideon. Smith Betts, a farm hand from a rural county in Maryland was charged with robbery and when he asked to be appointed with counsel, because he was too poor to hire his own, was denied. The judge's explanation was similar to that of Gideon’s by stating, “the practice in Carroll County [is] to appoint lawyers for the indigent only in prosecutions for murder and rape”(Lewis 115). Again similar to Gideon, Betts acted as his own lawyer. Despite his efforts the judge found Betts to be guilty and sentenced him eight years. After some time Betts filed a petition for habeas corpus with the state of Maryland’s court of appeals stating by refusing him a lawyer violated his constitutional rights. Chief Judge Carroll T. Bond review the trial and denied Betts petition. Judge bond believed the trial to be a simply affair stating, “‘in this case it must be said there was little for counsel to do on other side.’ Betts had been able ‘to take care of his own interests’”(Lewis 117). The ruling of Betts v. Brady was highly criticized. The following two cases resulted in reversals of the convictions due to lack of counsel, but after this it became evident the Court was trying to draw the line of which trials to reverse. After these two cases, “in 1947 the Court made it plain that in non-capital cases it was sticking to the flexible rule of Betts v. Brady”(Lewis 118). Betts v. Brady helped to pave

Brady affect his duty to Gideon, even though he believed an essential fairness during any criminal trial was representation by a lawyer. Fortas believes the “need for counsel is so obvious that the real argument for Betts v. Brady must be federalism” (Lewis 141). As the trial starts, Fortas begins to be challenged by the justices. He then makes some very crucial points about the Betts case stating that the real argument had to have been the pull of federalism due to the sensitivity of the court. Justice Harlan then challenges him by stating, “‘understanding sensitivity’ seems to me a most unfortunate term to describe one of the fundamental principles of our constitutional system”(Lewis 180). Fortas quickly replies without a flicker of