The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright Case Study

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Brief

Gideon v. Wainwright is a notable case in the United State’s Supreme Court. It is a problem that involves the constitutional right to counsel, in all criminal cases in the US, through the cause of the fourteenth amendment. In this case the court confirmed that all indigent defendants had the right to counsel. This included arraignments and trials. Powell v. Alabama, which was an earlier case, had already passed this resolution. However, it was only applicable to cases that involved death penalties (McNeese 62).

The Supreme Court also allowed the United States to provide attorneys to various criminal cases in Betts v. Brandy. All criminal cases, since then, would be argued out by attorneys appointed by the government. After a period of about twenty years, Gideon was the first person to be denied the Right to Counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright’s Case

On the night of 3rd June, 1961, there was a burglary in Panama City, at the Harbor Pool Room. An eye witness later reported that he had seen Mr. Clarence Earl Gideon leaving that room at around 5.30 in the morning. The police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon basing on this accusation. They searched him and found him with $25.5 coins in his pockets. They charged Gideon in the court of justice with forcefully entering the room with an ill intention of petty larceny. In Powell v. Alabama, the court had made a decision confirming the association of the right to counsel with the Bill of Rights. This would be a basic right from then. Elsewhere, in Betts v. Brandy, the Court had adjusted this right slightly. The modification would allow the court to investigate whether or not an imperative need for counsel existed, depending on the magnitude of the case. However, after twenty years, the court had received several cases, and none of them ruled that there was no need to counsel.

When Gideon appeared in Court, he pleaded for the right to counsel, claiming that he was extremely poor, but the Court turned down his request (Fridell 99). Gideon thus was his own counsel, conducting a self-defense case in court, to prove his level of innocence. Gideon did not have any experience in court cases. He found this to be an extremely difficult task. He had many random witnesses who did not give any concrete evidence that the court could use to prove his innocence (McNeese 96). The Jury found him guilty and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment.

This was the maximum sentence he could have ever received. When he got into prison, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing in suit of Florida’s Department of Corrections Secretary. He filed a case of writ of habeas corpus. This was in Florida’s Supreme Court. However, his request was rejected. He wrote a letter to the Supreme Court using the prison’s letter-head, through which he would sue this secretary. He said that his right to counsel and his sixth amendment right faced violation during his case. The Court then gave him a chance to use an attorney from Washington D.C who argued his case.

Rules that were applicable

The fundamental rule that was significant in this case was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In judging the first case, against Gideon, the Court based its decision on the evidence that the police had found, and the claims of the accuser’s attorney. However, when Gideon appealed the case, the jury made a judgment basing on the right to counsel. Under federal law, the defendant can ignore his right to counsel if he proves to the court that he has a sound knowledge of the case at hand.

Implications

The Court gave Gideon the chance to pick a lawyer to reason out his case. Florida’s Supreme Court, on the other hand, immediately hired state attorneys to work in all its states courts (Fridell 104). Gideon thus opened the door for cases, which created more constitutional rights to protect the defendants in court cases. The Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, ruled that all persons in custody must be given an opportunity to understand their rights. In 2002, the Supreme Court made a rule requiring all cases to enjoy the right to counsel.

Summary

The Sixth amendment of the United States Constitution does not recognize capital and non-capital cases; it provides that all cases regardless of their magnitude have the right to counsel, apart from cases where the defendant decides to waive their right to counsel. It was hence right of the Supreme Court to appoint an attorney from Washington D.C to argue for Gideon.

Chart

The first case took place in the district magistrate’s court, which is the lowest rank of the court. Gideon was found guilty and arrested. However, he later appealed to the court of appeal, which declined his request. He wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, which decided to consider his appeal and listen to him. All these were taking place as he remained in remand. Below is a chart.

Works Cited

Fridell, Ron. Gideon V. Wainwright: The Right to Free Counsel. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2006. Print.

McNeese, Tim. Gideon V. Wainwright: The Right to Free Legal Counsel, Great Supreme Court Decisions. London: InfoBase Publishing, 2007. Print.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, April 25). The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gideon-v-wainwright-the-case-study/

Work Cited

"The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright." IvyPanda, 25 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/gideon-v-wainwright-the-case-study/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright'. 25 April.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright." April 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gideon-v-wainwright-the-case-study/.

1. IvyPanda. "The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright." April 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gideon-v-wainwright-the-case-study/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "The Constitutional Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright." April 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gideon-v-wainwright-the-case-study/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
Privacy Settings

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

  • Basic site functions
  • Ensuring secure, safe transactions
  • Secure account login
  • Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
  • Remembering privacy and security settings
  • Analyzing site traffic and usage
  • Personalized search, content, and recommendations
  • Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Required Cookies & Technologies
Always active

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Site Customization

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

  • Remembering general and regional preferences
  • Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy.

Personalized Advertising

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy.

1 / 1