ipl-logo

Clarence Gideon's Trial

843 Words4 Pages

Clarence Earl Gideon, the criminal, a hero for the criminals in the future. Gideon showed up to court without an attorney and requested to have one appointed to him as soon as possible. He was not appointed one and had to represent himself. Gideon was charged with a felony by Florida State Court for vandalism and intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. He broke into a poolroom for money, had a little too much fun, vandalized a statue or two and got caught.
On January 15, 1963, Clarence Gideon showed up to court without an attorney and expected the court to appoint one for him because he didn’t have the money to afford one. The Florida Supreme Court refused. The Florida State laws state that they appoint criminals who cannot afford an attorney …show more content…

Even with his efforts, the jury still found Gideon guilty. He was sentenced to five years in prison. While in jail, in the library he researched about the Sixth Amendment, how the defendants should have the right to an attorney even when they cannot afford one and the law.. To try and change that, Gideon petitioned a habeas corpus. A habeas corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. The Florida Supreme Court still denied his petition. He then wrote a letter to the United States Supreme Court and they finally agreed to his petition and would possibly reconsider the decision made by the Betts and Brady Case. Betts was convicted of robbery in Maryland at their Supreme Court. He, also, could not afford to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint him one. The Court denied and Betts pleaded not guilty,and then was later found guilty by the judge and sentenced to eight years in prison. He too sought release from a habeas corpus and denied once again. They did not find it violating any part of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time, "appointment of counsel is a not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial." This is what made them refuse the plea of the Sixth

Open Document