 |
 |
 |
A BIT OF HISTORY
Gideon vs Wainwright case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright )Background
Case
Decision
Background
The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the right to counsel was essential to the safeguarding of American freedoms, but left it up to the states just how far this right extended. In Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the Court modified this doctrine slightly, ruling that whether or not a lawyer was required would depend on the circumstances of each case. Specifically, the Court focused on a case-by-case determination of whether the lack of representation effected a denial of due process, rendering the trial unfair. Over the next twenty years, the Court heard several more cases, and in all of them ruled that in fact a lawyer was required. Due to the difficulty of proving the high standard of a due process violation, nearly all such cases involved the death penalty. This view had not changed by the early 1960s.
Case
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon had been accused of breaking into a pool hall in Panama City Bay County, Florida and taking money from the vending machines. He appeared in court too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place:
The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
The DEFENDANT: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.
Gideon had been forced therefore to act as his own counsel, and conducted a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary. From his prison cell, and making ample use of the prison library, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court based on the fact that he had been denied counsel and therefore his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated without due process of law. The court assigned him a prominent Washington, DC, attorney, Abe Fortas (later a Supreme Court justice from 1965–1969) as counsel.
Decision
The unanimous decision was announced on 18 March 1963; the opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Hugo Black.
In it, the court specifically praised its previous ruling in Powell v. Alabama, and overruled Betts v. Brady, which allowed selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states, itself previously binding only in Federal cases. Instead, the court held that the right to counsel was a fundamental right, essential for a fair trial, thereby emphasizing the procedural safeguards which were needed for due process of law. In this sense, the court ruled specifically that no one, regardless of wealth, education or class, should be charged with a crime and then be forced to face his accusers in court without the guidance of counsel. All of the other justices concurred in the judgment.
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for "further action not inconsistent with this decision." Gideon was then retried: represented by appointed counsel in this second trial, he was acquitted. Gideon v. Wainwright was one of a series of Supreme Court decisions which confirmed the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to counsel during trial, on appeal, and in the subsequent cases of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), even during police interrogation.
