Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Study

In 1963, the case of Gideon V. Wainwright was presented to the Supreme Court. The case focused on Clarence Gideon, a drifter who was accused of robbing and vandalizing a pool hall in Florida. No witnesses could definitively confirm that Gideon committed the crime but, they could place him in that area near the time of that the robbery occurred. After Gideon was arrested and put on trial, he asked for an attorney because he could not afford one. The judge denied his request because Florida, at the time, did not provide attorneys for those who could not afford it unless, it was a capital crime. After hearing this, Gideon proceeded to represent himself in court, he lost his case and was found guilty. When he was sentenced, Gideon claimed that

Before his trial Clarence Gideon requested an attorney to represent him in court because he was aware of his sixth amendment rights but, he was denied the possibility of being properly represented in court due to the fact that he was not facing charges that would warrant the death penalty (Oyez). This practice is recognized as unjust and unconstitutional but was once seen as normal in Floridian court systems. It would be virtually impossible to represent oneself in court because it is almost impossible to know every law and therefore substantially harder to not self-incriminate. The judicial system is built on the principles of justice and fairness. One can easily see how the odds were stacked against Gideon and thus proving how it was unjust for him to go into a trial so grossly unprepared on how to defend himself. Without the right to an attorney, the judicial system in America would be radically different. For instance, juries may be heavily influenced to side with large companies or corporations that can afford representation rather than an average citizen that cannot afford a lawyer. This would lead to an unfair advantage in American courts and create a breeding ground for corruption. This case eliminated this possibility, and changed the future of court cases in America

This petition was denied but, this did not stop Gideon from seeking justice. He then filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus and sent it to the United States Supreme Court. This petition stated that because he was not provided an attorney, it violated his rights as an American citizen because of this, he determined that he was wrongly imprisoned and should be set free. After consideration, the Supreme Court decided to hold a hearing and determine whether or not Gideons claims held any substance and if his rights were encroached upon. During this trial, Clarence Gideon was represented by Abraham Fortas. This attorney would later go on to be appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to be a Supreme Court Justice. Fortas explained to the court that an overwhelming amount of people would not be able to represent themselves in a court of law. Let alone Gideon who only had a middle school level education. Furthermore, Fortas led on that there was no witness who saw Gideon commit the crime in the first place, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (Ashenmiller). This compelled the judges to vote unanimously in favor of Gideon and thus reinforcing the fact that one should never be denied the right to an attorney. The reason for this ruling was simple, it