Summary Of The Gideon V. Wainwright Case

In 1963, the Gideon v. Wainwright case violated the United States Constitution as the court did not grant Gideon his constitutional right to be provided counsel. Clarence Earl Gideon committed many nonviolent crimes in his early life but on June 3, 1961, Gideon was involved in a burglary in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Between midnight and 8:00 am, he broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register. Based on a witness’s account, the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny. When Gideon went to trial, he requested an attorney to represent him. The judge of Florida denied his request because under the state laws

After Florida denied his petition, Gideon appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed his case in 1963 and a unanimous decision was announced by Justice Hugo Black. The Supreme Court ruled Gideon’s conviction unconstitutional because he was denied a defense lawyer. Once the Supreme Court ruled that each state is required to provide defense attorneys to any criminal defendants charged with a felony, Gideon was retried and acquitted on all charges. The Gideon v. Wainwright case not only helped to free 2,000 individuals in Florida, but also helped many individuals without sufficient funds in the United States, as Gideon’s outspoken stance ensured them the right to counsel. This case caused the Supreme Court to revise the Sixth Amendment by providing all defendants with

The men pleaded not guilty but were accused of rape that same day. For the first time, via the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment reached the state levels as a result of Gideon vs. Wainwright. The Fourteenth Amendment included “the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures” (Cornell Law). This required Alabama’s defendants to be appointed attorneys for their cases. Although the Scottsboro were given their rights, the men were not informed that they could hire lawyers, so they had no access to a lawyer until shortly before the trial. Consequently, the men only discussed the case with their lawyers immediately preceding the hearing—leading to a weak defense. This therefore, lead to a guilty verdict for the Scottsboro boys in the original case. Because the men were not given a fair trial, they appealed their convictions to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the trial was fair leading the men to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court however disagreed with the state rulings and reversed them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the boys’ rights were violated as the boys were not allowed to discuss the case with their