Clarence Gideon Case Essay

In 1961 the Florida Supreme Court denied Clarence Gideon’s request for an appointed lawyer during his trial. Gideon was poor and could not afford a lawyer and he was uneducated so he could not properly defend himself. His case applies to the Sixth Amendment which guarantees that the accused has the right to an attorney if they want one, and depriving someone’s right to counsel is a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite his criminal background, Clarence Gideon’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court in 1963 resulted in the expansion of the right to counsel, an important element of due process, for all Americans.

In 1961 Clarence Gideon, an indigent man with a troubled background of crime and jail time, was

When he was fourteen, Clarence Gideon ran away from home which ended his formal education and began a series of criminal activity and convictions (Harper). Within a year, he was arrested for the first time and “sentenced to three years at the Missouri State Reformatory for Boys.” (Harper) Shortly after Gideon was released, he continued to carry out more crimes. He was convicted of burglary, larceny, and robbery, and sentenced to ten years in the state prison (Harper). However, after approximately 3 ½ years in prison, Gideon was released with parole (Harper). At the time of his release it was especially difficult to find a job because the economy was poor. It was even more difficult for Gideon because of his lack of education and experience. Struggling to make a living, Gideon turned to committing more crimes. He spent time in prison all over the country over many years (Harper). Gideon’s struggles with the law matched his struggles in his many marriages and family life. Gideon was divorced four times, and when he was still married to his fourth wife they had three children together. “All three children were eventually removed from the home by child-welfare authorities.” (Citizendium) Even with a peppered background and little education, Clarence Gideon asserted his rights and broadened the due process clause for all Americans through the right to

Wainwright court case was an unanimous decision that repealed past cases. Before Gideon v. Wainwright, different states had different laws in regards to providing lawyers for those who could not afford one. In Florida earlier case opinions only required that a lawyer be appointed to anybody in capital cases, not for any other crimes. Gideon was unable to afford a lawyer and properly defend himself because he was poor and uneducated, which put him in a bad situation to understand his due process rights. When the Supreme Court decided to order a new trial and acquit Gideon, it overturned past precedents in previous cases (Gale). The new precedent used the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all Americans regardless of state laws, to expand the right to counsel for all Americans. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at the federal level, but this new precedent applied to the state level. The Supreme Court decision was clearly uncontroversial because it was an unanimous decision: 9-0 majority (Oyez). All the Justices believed the Constitution placed a high importance on the right to a proper defense for the accused, as stated in the Sixth Amendment, and that it was unconstitutional for a court to deny proper defense for anyone charged. “The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel as a protection of due process” (Oyez), which does not limit due process just to those who can afford it, but rather all