More handpicked essays just for you.
How gideon v. wainwright illustrates the importance and influence of the supreme court
How gideon v. wainwright illustrates the importance and influence of the supreme court
How gideon v. wainwright illustrates the importance and influence of the supreme court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961
For instance, the defendants were not allowed an attorney or any sort of help, although the prosecution was. This even violated the sixth amendment in the American Constitution, meaning it was outright illegal (EB 1). Another example of unfairness to the defendant, is that all of the judges of the court had no legal background or training, and ran the courts only from the knowledge of the Bible, and advice from Ministers (2 CSD 1). This lack of legal background almost guaranteed that if they had to make a decision, they would decide in favor of the prosecution, because that was the side they supported. Furthermore, the courts were also run unfairly because anytime someone was found not guilty, the judges would urge the jury to think again, trying to make them vote guilty (1 CSD
On August 4, 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for stealing money and drinks from a pool house in Florida. When he was arrested he was tried for his crimes. The 6th amendment states that if a defendant is too poor to provide a lawyer than he should be provided one by the Court, but Gideon was not given a lawyer. He was not given a lawyer because it says in the Florida law that lawyers are only provided in big felonies, not misdemeanors. So Gideon should have been provided a lawyer and was not.
Clarence Earl Gideon was falsely accused of burglarizing a cigarette machine and jukebox inside a poolroom. When Gideon was sent to court to receive his sentence, he had no lawyer, therefore he had to defend himself. Despite his valiant efforts, Gideon was sent to 5 years in prison. While there, Gideon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus hoping to challenge his conviction. His ability to file for a petition is a positive right, so even though he was not given a lawyer, despite his need and right to one, some of his positive rights—filing a petition—were still upheld.
Gideon was undoubtedly found guilty of the crime and was sent to prison. While he sat in a Florida prison, Gideon felt that his constitutional right to have an attorney was not granted. Thus, Gideon formulated an appeal to the Supreme Court handwritten on prison paper. The Supreme Court accepted his documents and decided to hear his case. Prior to Gideon vs Wainwright, Betts vs Brady was the case doctrine that was followed.
Fortas argued Gideon 's case by using wether Betts V. Brady should be reconsidered. The Betts V. Brady case had ruled that (akin to Gideon’s) that the fourteenth amendment requires states to appoint counsel only under special circumstances. It has been an unpopular standard and was constantly criticized but nevertheless was in effect. In only two short months, the verdict for Gideon 's case had been decided, Betts V. Brady was found unconstitutional, as it violated the sixth amendment 's right to a fair and speedy trial and that looking at the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees due process of law, the court was wrong to not have appointed Gideon a lawyer. The court then ruled that Gideon should be given a retrial, this time with a court appointed
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.
It is well understood in today’s society that every person charged with a crime is entitled to the counsel of an attorney, regardless if the defendant can afford an attorney or not. Prior to the landmark decision of Gideon v Wainwright (1963), indigent defendants charged in state courts were not guaranteed the right to counsel. The Gideon case extended the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s right to counsel in federal trials, though incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, to apply to all states. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in Gideon and opined that “The right of one charged with a crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours” (Gideon
Now anyone can get a court appointed counsel. “The right to appointed counsel has been extended to misdemeanor and juvenile proceedings”(The Legacy of Gideon v. Wainwright). “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school” (Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright). Gideon gave criminals the right to a fair trial making him a definite hero.
Wainwright was decided on March 18, 1963. Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961 and charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall and stealing money from vending machines. At trial, he requested a lawyer to represent him as he could not afford one himself. He was informed by a Florida judge that the state only provided counsel and representation to indigent defendants who were charged with crimes that might result in the death penalty if found guilty. After he was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, he filed a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court.
During the punishment part of the trial, his first lawyer, who was provided for him, dropped out because he could not find any meaningful
Before the Sixth Amendment was created, the victim nor the accused were not represented by a lawyer, instead they represented themselves. This proved to be a faulty system, which is why they added the Amendment. Some would argue
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
I have a story like the story of the faith of Gideon and 300 warriors. In the story, at first, Gideon is called to rescue Israel from the angel of the Lord and bewildered But Jesus promised Gideon; The Lord answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive (Gideon 6:16).” With this promise, God showed the miraculous sign that Gideon brought meat and unleavened bread burnt on the rocks and Gideon led war to victory with only 300 ordinary people and only faith. As I read this story, I remembered the moment I came to the United States. After graduating from high school, I felt anxiety for the future and lost a lot of faith but through my sister, God sent me here to America.
Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.
