Henry Brunisholz Mrs. Phelps Mock Trial/ 4(A) March 23, 2017 A Case Study of Gideon v. Wainwright The Facts: The year is 1961 in Panama City, Florida. A thief by the name of Clarence Earl Gideon has broken into a poolroom and is stealing a pint of wine and a bit of small coinage. He was arrested before he stole anything, the crime was left unfinished. As a poor man, Clarence implored his judge to appoint him a lawyer as he couldn’t afford the services of one himself. Sadly, under Florida’s law of the time, the judge was obliged to refuse the poor man’s request since Clarence’s crime was not a capital offense. A capital offense is of course a crime in which death is a possible penalty. Second degree petty theft or petty theft is classified …show more content…
under current Florida law as, ‘If the property stolen is valued at less than $100, the offender commits petit theft of the second degree’. Second degree petit theft is a class B misdemeanor and is therefore punishable by up to 60 days of imprisonment and a fine that does not exceed $500. Mr. Gideon obviously pleaded not guilty, but the court found him guilty. He was sentenced to five years in prison, whilst in jail Clarence filed a habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Florida and argued that his constitutional right to present his defense with the help of legal counsel. A habeas corpus is a court order that commands or in this case is a request by the incarcerated person to appear in court at specific time and date, in order to reconsider the legality of their said incarceration. In this case, the habeas corpus alleged that Gideon’s case was a pauper case. Pauper cases allow the Supreme Court to appoint legal counsel to poor defendants for the defendants in these cases are to be considered too poor to defend themselves. Eventually, the Supreme Court agreed with Gideon’s allegation and appointed Abe Fortas, a future Supreme Court Justice to represent Clarence in court. Constitutional Issue: The constitutional issue of this case lies with two other cases.
The first of these was Powell v. Alabama (1932). Powell v. Alabama was a rape case where 9 African American males, were tried and convicted of raping 2 caucasian females. These poor lads were only given counsel to represent them in court, counsel that did not talk to their clients or even understand why they were there. The court in Powell v. Alabama was then asked a very important question whose answer we can see affecting how people were to be represented in court to this day. That question was whether the trials violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The due process clause states that all states must obey all laws to provide a fair proceeding. In this case, the jury decided that due process was not followed because the defendant's counsel was not given time to even talk to their clients. From that point on legal counsel was to be provided to defendants in capital cases. This of course was very important to Gideon v. Wainwright because it laid the foundation that defendants are required to have a counsel for their defense. Another case’s verdict also provided the foundation on which Gideon v. Wainwright built on. This case was Betts v. Brady. Betts was arrested for theft. He was unable to hire a counsel for his defense and subsequently plead not guilty while claiming he had a right to …show more content…
counsel. The question that was asked here is whether or not denying a defendant a counsel for their defense violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The jury decided that denying a defendant counsel does not violate the due process clause. While this may seem like a retrograde step, the decision by the jury in Betts v. Brady was reconsidered in Gideon v. Wainwright. Now, with these other two cases out of the way we can finally look at the issue in Gideon v. Wainwright. The constitutional issue here is whether a defendant who can not afford legal counsel has their right to counsel taken away from them if legal counsel is not provided. The Decision and Reasoning: The jury in Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that Gideon and all others after him had a right to legal counsel which now extended to all accused. They unanimously reached this obvious decision 9-0 with no dissenting opinion. The majority’s opinion is as follows, the framers held the accused right to present a defense very highly. To present that defense defendants need trained legal counsel, as is stated in the 6th amendment. This defense is to be presented in all cases, not just those where a conviction could leave the defendant dead. Therefore all defendants are to be provided legal counsel if they can not afford counsel themselves, if legal counsel is not provided then the defendant’s right to counsel is violated. The jury was of the opinion that this decision was consistent with the constitution. They also held that state courts are henceforth required to provide counsel to poor defendants. The jury held that the framers stressed a defendant’s right to present a defense while they also knew that a defendant can not be guaranteed a fair trial without legal counsel. Black, the lead jury, also said that both the poor and the rich are equally entitled to counsel, here the United States took another step to fulfilling the promise that ‘all men are created equal’. Evaluating the Decision and Predicting the Impact: Gideon v. Wainwright greatly increased the fairness of our court system. Now, poor defendants can have legal counsel provided to them by the state. Now, those who are systemically disenfranchised and potentially impoverished can have a professional present their defense. Many innocent people who can now be defended well have been acquitted. Further Questions: Why did the Court believe Gideon could not defend himself?
The Court believed Clarence Earl Gideon was unable to present his defense because he was not trained as legal counsel and therefore did not posses the necessary skills to act as a criminal defense attorney. Did the Court rule that a defendant could never act as his or her own lawyer? The Court did not rule that a defendant could not act as their own legal counsel to present their defense. The Court merely ruled that if a defendant can not afford legal counsel to present their defense and is either unwilling or unable to represent themselves in court, the state is legally obliged to provide legal counsel if so requested by the defendant, but only if requested. In overturning its Betts v. Brady ruling what did the Court say in effect about its current judgement in that case? In overturning the decision made in Betts v. Brady the Court made a very important and strong statement that took a step in the direction of a fair democracy. This decision was as follows, in Betts v. Brady the Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th amendment was fulfilled, even if the defendant(s) are not provided legal counsel to present their
defense. Under the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling why is a trial judge required to appoint legal counsel to the defendant(s) claim they are too poor to afford counsel themselves? Under the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling a judge is legally obligated to appoint legal counsel to poor defendants if they ask for the Court believed that since ‘all men are created equal’ all men (and women) are entitled to legal counsel to present their defense, no matter their financial standings. Why is the decision made in Gideon v. Wainwright considered as a historic civil liberties victory? The decision in Gideon v. Wainwright is considered a historic victory for civil liberties because from this point on all defendants are to be allowed to have legally trained and professional counsel to present their defense and ensure they receive a fair verdict, no matter how much money a defendant might make.
The impact that this case had on the Constitution and Amendments was that of determining if this officer had done a search beyond the demands of the original search, and if he had violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history, nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and FBI’s and the like to “do their homework” before declaring someone guilty of a crime.
The case of Ford V. Wainwright is a Supreme court case of the United Stated argued in 1986. Alvin Bernard Ford is the plaintiff in this case, In 1974 he was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. In 1982 Ford began to show signs of a serious mental disorder. The Governor of Florida then appointed a panel of three psychiatrist to determine if Ford was component to understand the nature of the death penalty and the crime he had committed. All three psychiatrist disagreed on his exact diagnosis but agreed that he was sane and knew the nature of the death penalty. Ford’s attorney unsuccessfully sought a hearing in the state court for determination of his competency and then filed a hebeas corpus petition, which is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court especially for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty. The Florida courts denied his petition and signed a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford then sued Louie L. Wainwright, the defendant, who at the time of the case was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Correction.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
In Gideon's Trumpet Anthony Lewis documents Clarence Earl Gideon's struggle for a lawyer, during an era where it was not necessary in the due process to appoint an attorney to those convicted.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.
This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
When working with a court appointed lawyer you need to research and follow up on guidelines that carry with your charge. You have to learn how the court system works. Lawyers that are hired by the court to represent the low and middle-income people are lazy in doing their job. There are many reasons why court appointed lawyers don't do their best for their clients involving the court cases.
The Supreme Court, Strickland case set the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): the defendant David Washington had pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced to death. During the sentencing process Washington lawyer did not seek any character witnesses and did not request any psychiatric evaluation for his client. Due to this defendant decided to appeal his sentence on the basis of inadequate representation of his attorney a violation of ...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
The framers formed this country with one sole document, the Constitution, which they wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This bountiful wisdom arose from the unjust treatment of King George to which the colonists were subject. Among these violations of the colonists' rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of justice. As a result, a fair trial of the accused was a right given to the citizens along with other equities that the framers instilled in every other facet of this country's government. These assurances of the citizens' rights stated in the bill of rights. In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." A first reading of this phrase one might be think that this right, that which gives a person accused of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being that it is among the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the public. However, the simple manner in which this amendment is phrased creates a "gray area", and subject to interpretation under different circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legal defense is further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As a result, many questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true right of the accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided by the government if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel for his defense? Or, on the other hand, does this amendment set the responsibility of assembling a defensive counsel on the accused even if he or she lacks the funds to do so? Also, do the states have the right to make their own legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.
Miranda and his lawyers argued that his fifth and sixth amendment was violated. Within the fifth and sixth amendment they argued that Miranda testified against himself and also that he asked for a lawyer. In a pace law review they state that “The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his right against self-incrimination nor
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...