Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The Right to Councel

Previous Precident: Betts v. Brady (1942)

Betts was indicted for robbery and detained in a Maryland jail.

Before his trial he asked for counsel to represent him

He was denied and convicted

He filed a writ of habeas corpus, and eventually appealed all the way to the Supreme Court

Supreme Court case: Betts v. Brady

Supreme Court ruled in favor of Betts, yet they stated that the right to counsel must be decided on a case by case basis.

Clarence Earl GideonPersonal HistoryHis father died

when he was three

His mother remarried two years later

His mother and stepfather were factory workers and thus pretty poor

The next 33 yearsHe has an assortment of odd jobs and

numerous stays in prison, usually for burglary

He married four times

In 1957, he moved to Panama City and worked as a mechanic.

His family left him after he was in jail again

The next 33 yearsShortly before the infamous poolroom

burglary, Gideon was arrested twice for crimes he hadn’t committed. The FBI believed he was guilty of a break-in at the local armory because he had been convicted of a similar crime 25 years earlier. When the Bay Harbor Bar was robbed, they also suspected Gideon. They couldn’t find evidence in either case so they threw him in jail for vagrancy.

A month after his release, he was arrested for breaking into the Bay Harbor Poolroom

The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary

The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary

Officer Henry Berryhill Jr. discovered the break-in during a routine patrol

He asked the man hanging around the front of the building if he knew anything about it

Henry Cook said he had seen Gideon leaving the building

The deputy found Gideon at a bar later that morning and arrested him

Gideon claimed he was innocent

The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary Trial

Held on August 4th, 1961 in the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida

When the judge asked if Gideon was ready for trial, he responded that he wasn’t and that he requested the court to appoint him counsel to represent him

The judge said that under Florida law, he couldn’t appoint a lawyer to Gideon unless he was charged of murder of a capital offense, both which threatened the death penalty

Previous RulingsSupreme Court, 1932: States had to

provide lawyers to poor people charged with serious crimes or murder

Supreme Court, 1938: Poor defendants, reguardless of the seriousness of the crimes they were being charged, were entitled to lawyers in federal trials

The Problem? Gideon was being tried for a minor offense in a state court

Had no lawyer, so had to provide all of the jobs that a lawyer would normally do, and most likely do better

He didn’t realize that he could dismiss jurors so he didn’t

His cross-examinations of witnesses had many flaws that a lawyers wouldn’t have had

The TrialGideon

Assistant State Attourney

William E. Harris

Presented the case against Gideon very well, knowing legal tactics and all

He was convicted of a maximum sentence of

5 years in the state prison in Raiford

Life in PrisonWhile in prison,

Gideon was petitioning the Florida Supreme Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to determine if he was being held illegally

When the Florida Supreme Court received this petition, they declined hearing Gideon’s case

There was no reason, it was just denied

He only had one way out: The US Supreme Court

Supreme CourtGideon’s first attempt to contact the

Supreme Court failedFourty copies of the petition must be

sent and all supporting documents must be typed. Also there was a $100 fee for a petition. Some poor applicants could provide a document saying that they couldn’t pay the fee

Gideon forgot to mail this along with the rest

Attempt Number 2Gideon tried again, this time being

successful

His letter included:The notarized affidavitCopy of appeal to The Florida Supreme CourtThe court’s replyHis main petition, a “Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari Directed to the Supreme Court of Florida”An order that the certified records of the last

court to hear the case be forwarded to the court of appeals

Gideon’s Letter and Petition

It was handwritten and full of incorrect grammar and spelling

Its intent was clear

He claimed his rights under the 14th Amendment had been violated

The 14th Amendment states that the government will not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”

Gideon believed that due process included the right to be represented by a lawyer

The Case CommensesGideon’s

DefenseThe Court appointed a

lawyer to Gideon, and this lawyer was very well known: Abe Fortas

He had already represented many people before the Supreme Court

He felt like if he had a good argument, the court was looking to overrule the Betts case

The Legal Question:Did the state court’s failure to appoint

counsel for Gideon violate his right to fair trial and due process as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

6th Amendment: The rights set forth in criminal prosecutions. For example, right to a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury…

14th Amendment: Prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps to ensure fairness.

The DecisionMarch 18, 1963

After deliberating Gideon’s case for two months, the Supreme Court announced, in a unanimous vote, that Betts should be overturned

Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinionIt spoke of the controversy since Betts was

decidedHe noted the similarities between Betts and

Gideon’s casesIt overruled Betts case

Because the American people are getting more freedoms and liberties so that the individuals themselves are protected

Ex. American Civil Liberties Union

Interest GroupsSupport the

DecisionOppose the

DecisionIt would be harder

to sentence someone and possibly would create cases that are disputed

The Precedent This Case Set:

Now in ANY case in ANY court you are guaranteed an attorney, no matter the circumstances

The right to an attorney is also one of the rights you must be informed of based from the case Miranda v. Arizona

Personal JudgementI believe that the Supreme Court got this

one right. If a person cannot afford an attorney that shouldn’t mean that they don’t get one. If it is a common citizen verses a lawyer in an oral argument, chances are that the lawyer is going to win, knowing legal tactics and all. This would mean that anyone too poor to afford an attorney would basically be convicted. That is not a fair trial, something guaranteed to us in the Constitution