Question presented: If a defendant is being charged in a state court for a noncapital felony, does the defendant have the right to be provided a lawyer by the court, if he/she can not afford one? (OR another simpler way of asking this question: Should Betts v. Brady be overruled?) The prior precedent the court is being asked to overrule is Betts v. Brady, which stated that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from depriving any person from life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law. Does the ruling in Betts v. Brady deprive defendants …show more content…
Gideon appears in court without money or a lawyer. Gideon asks the court to appoint him with legal counsel. Judge denies Gideon’s request for legal counsel, stating that under the laws of the State of Florida, the court can only appoint counsel when the defendant is charged with a capital offense. Gideon defends himself and carries out an: opening statement to jury, cross-examination of witnesses, declining to testify, and made a short argument emphasizing his innocence. Verdict shows that Gideon has been declared guilty, sentenced to five years in prison. A little while later, Gideon carries out habeas corpus petition. (unlawful trial) Gideon backs up petition by stating that the court denied him rights that were rightfully granted to him by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Gideon gets a petition for a writ of certiorari. (Which is when the higher court investigates a decision made by the lower court) Gideon goes free. Betts v. Brady is overruled. Majority holding In response to the question presented, the court answered in the affirmative. Betts v. Brady ultimately gets overruled. After Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that indigent (poor) criminal defendants have a right to a court-appointed