Gideon V Wainwright Case Summary

Supreme Court Cases: Rights of the Accused

The Supreme Court dealt with different issues such as the Rights of the accused in cases such as the Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, and In Re Gault in 1967. In the Gideon v. Wainwright, which began when Gideon “was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law”(Facts and Case Summary-Gideon v. Wainwright). Once the trial began, Gideon asked the judge “to appoint counsel for him, since he could not afford an attorney”(Facts and Case Summary-Gideon v. Wainwright), the judge only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses and denied Gideon’s request he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Gideon filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States, “the court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court”(Facts and Case Summary- Gideon v. Wainwright). A decision of the

Court’s Betts v. Brady, granted Gideon’s petition and agreed to hear Gideon’s case and review the decision of the lower court. The Court then unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady. This unanimous decision was made by Justice Black, who wrote the opinion of the court, and Justices Douglas, Clark and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions. Justice Black said that “ 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.... each defendant stands equal before the law [and] cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has no face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him” (Facts and Case Summary-Gideon v. Wainwright). This case impacted the decision on American Society because it now provided a lawyer for someone who is unable to afford one.
In the case of Miranda v.

Arizona, “Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness” (Facts and Case Summary-Miranda v. Arizona). He was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced from 20 to30 years in prison, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. The Court decided that “a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires”(Facts and Case Summary-Miranda v. Arizona). This then began what is now known as “The Miranda Rights” which are told when someone is

arrested.
Another case was the In re Gault case, in where “Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964. After Mrs. Cook filed a complaint”(Facts and Case Summary-In re Gault). The officer who arrested them did not leave any notice of the arrest for the parents and they were told by the Lewis family, when they got to him the had scheduled a hearing in juvenile court the following day. On the first hearing he was questioned by a judge and Gault admitted, then he was taken to a Detention Home and released two or three days later with another hearing for June 15, 1964. At the end of this hearing he was committed to juvenile detention for six years until he turned 21, where an adult would of received a maximum sentence of $50 fine and two months in jail. “The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural rights of a juvenile defendant in delinquency proceedings where there is a possibility of incarceration”(Facts and Case Summary-In re Gault). At the time of his arrest if he was 18 he would of been charged as an adult.

Supreme Court Cases: Education
In another issue such as the issue of education the Supreme Court Cases that were involved with this issue were as the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 and Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke in 1978. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, before this case, African Americans could not attend the same public facilities, ride the same buses and attend the same school as the whites. In this case “when the cases came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court consolidated all five cases under the name of Brown v. Board of Education [and] Marshall personally argued the case before the Court”(History-Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment). A unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, “the decision held that racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”(Landmark Cases:Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment). This constructed the common education where both races could attend the same public schools.
In the other case called Regents of University of California v. Bakke, “ the Supreme Court ruled that a university’s use of racial “quotas” in its admission process was unconstitutional, but a school’s use of “affirmative action” to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances”(Landmark Cases:Regents of University of California v. Bakke). This case began when the Medical School of the University of California at Davis reserved 16 out of 100 seats for minorities, including “blacks,” “Chicanos,” “Asians,” and “American Indians.” The Supreme Court, made a decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, “a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis”(Landmark Cases:Regents of University of California v. Bakke). Then the Court argued that this discriminated the whites from 16 out of 100 spots by virtue of their race. The Court finally decided to make racially invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. With this “in the 30 years since this ruling, public and private universities have crafted affirmative action programs consistent with Bakke’s requirements”(Landmark Cases:Regents of University of California v. Bakke).