Gideon v.

Wainwright
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely main character. A boy with
an eighth-grade education ran away from home during middle school.
The majority of his early years was spent as a vagabond and in and out
of prison for nonviolent infractions. Gideon was charged with burglary
with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a criminal under
Florida law. During his trial, Gideon appeared in court without
representation. Since he could not afford a counsel, he implored the
judge in open court to appoint one for him. Because Florida law only
permitted the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants charged
with capital offenses, the trial judge denied Gideon's request. Gideon
defended himself in court by delivering an opening statement, cross-
examining the prosecution's witnesses, presenting his own witnesses,
refusing to testify, and underlining his innocence. Despite his efforts, the
jury found Gideon guilty, and he was sentenced to five years in prison.
Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition with the Florida Supreme Court to
appeal his conviction. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction
and sentence on the grounds that the trial judge's refusal to provide
counsel violated his constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court
denied Gideon's petition. Gideon then sent a handwritten petition to the
Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court opted to hear
the case in order to clarify whether the Sixth Amendment's right to
counsel applies to defendants in state court.

Rule: The Sixth Amendment stipulates that in all criminal cases, the
accused should have the right to legal representation.

Issue: Did the trial court wrong in refusing to appoint Wainright's

counsel?

Application:The answer to the question of this case is yes.

In reaching its conclusion that the right to counsel is a fundamental right
imposed on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court
considers its past rulings that other articles of the Bill of Rights are
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court accepts the assumption in Betts
v. Brady that the Fourteenth Amendment makes a fundamental and
essential to a fair trial Bill of Rights provision obligatory for the states.
Contrary to the Betts judgment, the Supreme Court determines that the
right to counsel is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court saw the Betts
Court's decision that access to counsel is not a fundamental right as an
abrupt departure from its own long-established standard. Further, the
Supreme Court maintains that the right to be heard at trial would be
ineffectual in many cases without the assistance of counsel who is
familiar with court rules, rules of evidence, and general court procedure.
Without a lawyer, "even if he is innocent, he risks conviction since he
does not know how to show his innocence."

Conclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment

ensures the right to counsel in all criminal proceedings for the accused.
The court had interpreted the Sixth Amendment to require federal courts
to provide counsel to indigent defendants unless the right was waived
competently and intelligently, and (3) the court looked to the nature of
the Bill of Rights protections to determine whether the Fourteenth
Amendment made them mandatory for the states.