Gideon v.
Wainwright a case that began in 1963, which was argued Jan 15th then decided
on March 18th. Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony of breaking and entering, with the
intent of stealing(misdemeanor). It happened under state Florida law. The petitioner had no
funds, so he asked the Court to assign counsel but was denied. The grounds under state law only
permitted impoverished individuals could happen for capital cases only. The petitioner
conducted his own defense, as well as can be expected, but was convicted and sentenced to
prison. Later, Gideon applied to the State Supreme Court under habeas corpus; the right to due
process of the law and to know why an individual is being held in prison. He stated claiming his
conviction was in violation under his rights of the Federal Constitution.
Clarence Gideon was an eighth-grade education level. He ran away from home when he
was in middle school. He was charged with a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida
Law. During trial, he appeared in court without counsel (attorney). He asked the judge to appoint
him counsel because he was indigent. The trial judge denied Gideon's request because under
Florida law it only permitted him counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses. At
trial he presented himself, making an opening statement and cross-examining the prosecution's
witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify, and made arguments
stressing his innocence. He did as well as a layman could and was sentenced to five years in
prison.
Gideon then appealed his conviction by filing a petition of writ of habeas corpus to the
Florida Supreme Court. Gideon's petition stated that his conviction that the trial judge's refusal to
appoint a counsel violated Gideon's constitutional rights. He was denied by the Florida Supreme
Court.
Gideon was not done, he then filed a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Then the Court, agreed to hear his case to resolve the issue whether or not the
right to counsel was guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment which applies to defendants in state
court.
A prior decision from the Court's, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), retained that the
refusal to an appointed counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor did not
particularly violate Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted
Gideon's petition of write certiorari and agreed to hear Gideon's case and review the decision of
the lower court to determine if Betts should be reconsidered.
The ruling overruled the Court unanimously over Betts v. Brady which was argued
January 15, 1963 and decided on March 18, 1963. It was unanimously decided that Justice
Black, who concurred with Betts, wrote the opinion of court. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan
each wrote similar opinions.
The Supreme Court that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental
right required for a fair trial, this applies to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. From overturning Betts, Justice Black stated “reason and reflection require us to
recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too
poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." The
Judge further wrote that the "noble ideal" for a fair trial before an impartial tribunal in which the
defendant stands equal before law. It cannot be realized that an indigent individual charged with
a crime to face the accusers without an attorney to help him.
Gideon v. Wainwright ended in success, stating individuals that commit criminal offenses
deserve the right to counsel. The case made it where all criminal offenses require an attorney for
a fair trial even if the person is indigent.
