Case: Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. wainwright is a supreme court case in which the court held that in criminal cases, all states under the sixth amendment of the American constitution could provide an attorney to defendants who cannot afford it. The case also under the fifth and sixth Amendments extended the right to counsel by imposing those requirements on both the federal and states. On June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred between midnight and 8.00 a.m in Panama City at a Harbor pool room. An unidentified individual broke a door, stole money from a cash register, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player. A witness later that day reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon around the poolroom at around 5.30 a.m that morning with a change in his pockets, wine bottle, and coke. Without any further evidence, the police arrested Gideon, and was charged with entering and breaking a house to commit a larceny.
The court argued that it could not appoint a counsel to represent Gideon in his case. They argued that under the laws of Florida, the court could only appoint a counsel to represent someone when charged with a capital offense. Gideon argued that the United States Supreme Court had entitled him the right to be represented by a counsel. Gideon was forced to appoint his own counsel to act on his defense and prove his innocence since the court rejected his plea. The jury gave a guilty verdict, and Gideon was sentenced to serve five years in prison. After the verdict, he filed a petition for a writ in the Supreme Court of Florida. Due to the fact that the judge had refused to appoint counsel to represent him in his petition, he argued that it violated the Sixth Amendment right. Florida Supreme Court threw out this petition.
From Florida State Prison library, Gideon wrote to the United States Supreme Court to appeal against H.G Cochran, the secretary of Florida Department of Corrections. Cochran retired before the case was heard by the Supreme Court and was replaced by Louie Wainwright. In his appeal, he argued that he had been denied counsel, and therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated as applied to states in the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon was assigned a prominent Washington D.C attorney Abe Fortes. In his argument, Fortas argued that a state court’s framework to appoint a counsel was unworkable. In such a framework, a magistrate in a hearing decided based on special circumstances on whether the defendant would be given counsel to represent him/her. In this case, however, Fortes argued that the case’s determination had been rushed, and the fact that the witness statement was only hearsay made the whole situation very complicated.
Fortes further argued that if a reputable lawyer is accused in the legal community, the first thing he does is hire an attorney. For example, Fortas pointed out that when Clarence Darrow, a criminal attorney in the United States, was accused of jury tampering, the first thing he did was appoint an attorney to represent him. Suppose Darrow needed an attorney, a man with such a broad legal experience about a man without any legal education. In response, Justice William O. Douglas praised Fortas’s argument as one of the best legal arguments in his 36-year experience in court.
Court decision
Justice Hugo Black delivered the Supreme Court decision on 18th March 1963. The decision was announced in favor of Gideon. Justice Clark and Harlan wrote concurring opinions, while Justice Douglas wrote a different opinion. The court cited a previous ruling on Powell v. Alabama (1932) decision where it only applied to non-capital cases. In Betts v. Brady (1942) case, it was argued that this would only be applicable under special circumstances such as low intelligence, illiteracy, and if the case is complicated. This case provided a selective application of the Sixth Amendment right depending on underlying circumstances. The Gideon case overruled Betts by stating that the right to counsel if the defendant cannot afford to hire one was a fundamental right in the United States Constitution. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial regardless of the circumstances. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clark argued that legal counsel must be provided in all cases since the Sixth Amendment does not distinguish between non-capital and capital offenses. Justice Harlan’s opinion argued that it is a special circumstance and requires counsel’s services
if there is a serious criminal charge.
More than 2000 individuals were freed from this decision, and Gideon was given a new trial with defense counsel W. Fred Turner at the government’s expense. In the retrial case, Turner picked an eyewitness Henry Cook and a taxi driver statement who took Gideon from Bay Harbor to a Panama city bar. The driver stated that Gideon had not been carrying coke, wine, or beer. This whole statement had discredited Cook. Gideon was finally acquitted.
Effects of this case to components of the American constitution
4th Amendment issue
From the analysis of the Betts and Gideon issue comparison between the Bill of Rights and the 4th Amendment brought federal concerns. The contradiction in Gideon’s case and Betts case held the fourth Amendment process, and this made the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to be applied in all states. Justice Black opinion concluded that the Sixth Amendment right was very vital and fundamental in all states.
Indigent equality
Justice Black noted that criminal justice assured fair trials in which every individual rich or poor are equal before the law. If a person is poor to hire a counsel and is haled in court, he cannot receive a fair trial without a counsel, and thus he should be provided with one. In Gideon’s case, the equality was limited since it did not stress on treat both the non-indigent and indigent on equal measure. This judgment mainly focused on having fair requirements without looking at the defendant’s financial capability.
Sixth amendment issue
The application of the Amendments solely on federal governments brought issues on the Sixth Amendment guarantee to states. The Gideon judgment brought about certain questions, such as what level of charges one qualifies to be appointed a council. Also, the Sixth Amendment right does not define the extent to which to provide funding to cater for extra special expertise to assist the council. The question of how the court can provide effective assistance in the aspect of providing counsel.
Since this decision, a lot of changes have been enacted in the legal system. The need for properly trained public defenders has increased in all-state. There has been controversy since they have many caseloads; thus, they have less time to represent their clients. Most of them encourage their clients to plead guilty to negotiate for a plea bargain. This is criticized, although some argue it is a way of reducing their workload. Thus these public defenders should be given enough resources and relief for an efficient court decision.