Gideon V. Wainwright Case

Gideon V. Wainwright Case
The right to counsel means that a defendant has the right to have assistance during trial. If a
defendant cannot afford a lawyer, then it is required that the government supplies a lawyer or pay for
the defendant's legal fees. The right to counsel has been around for many generations dating back to
the thirteenth century. The right to counsel was only around for the people that could afford one. In
1932, the case Powell v. Alabama (1932), 9 black males were convicted of raping two white females
named Ruby Bates and Victoria Price, on board a freight train that was going through Alabama. 8 of
the 9 black males were convicted and sentenced to death during their trials. The men were only
given access to their lawyers immediately before trial, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While the 6th amendment gives defendants the right for an effective assistance of counsel, that
doesn't always happen. When a defendant is convicted because of his lawyer's mistake, the court
must realize that there is no way justice could be service with no trust in the conviction and
essentially implies that the charges would be reversed or thrown out. To prove a claim of ineffective
assistance, the defendant must be able to show a lack of performance by his or her lawyer in court.
You would then have to depict how that made the trial unfair in the courtroom. The courts would
then look back and see if your defense attorney acted within reason and professional standards. In
Strickland v. Washington (1984), David Washington was arrested for three capital murder charges.
Washington pled guilty, but told the judge he was under extreme stress for supplying food on the
table for his family. The judge expressed how he had a great deal of respect for people who owe up
to the actions they do. During the preparation for Washington's hearing, his defense attorney did not
perform the proper background investigation he was suppose to perfume going into a murder
hearing. As a resort from lack of investigation Washington was sentenced to death on three counts of
murder. Washington fought back by appealing the court's decision explaining that his lawyer's
performance was deficient, and that his lawyer's
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Influential Supreme Court Case: Gideon vs. Wainwright Essay
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 ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
His mother and step–father would constantly argue over various things with Clarence usually being
the cause. When he was 14 years old he ran away from home. He became a hobo living on the
streets and went to California, then eventually back to Missouri to live with his brother. Over the
next 20 years he was sent to jail quite often during his life as a poor man for things such as robbery
and was also sentenced to some years in prison. Later in his life he was involved several failed
marriages and eventually went to Panama City in an attempt to make money by working as an
electrician and gambling for additional money. He saved up some money and began living at a Hotel
there, which was across the street from the Bay Harbor Bar and pool room. On June 3, 1961
Clarence was arrested for stealing about five dollars, some beers, and sodas from the jukebox and
cigarette machine at the Hotel's pool room. Henry Cook, who lived close by told police he had seen
Gideon come out of it with a bottle of wine (and his pockets full of coins) and leave in a taxicab. He
was found in a bar with some $25 in change; money he said he earned gambling. Despite this he was
charged with breaking and entering in an attempt to commit larceny. Gideon was too poor to afford a
lawyer so he asked if the Florida Circuit judge, Judge Robert McCrary, Jr., would appoint one for
him because he pointed out that the sixth amendment guarantees everyone a right

The Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright
One of the main purposes of our judicial system is to produce fair results. This way the defendant is
not convicted for something that they did not do. Although this is supposed to be the case, our
society is set up in a way where the rich people have more of an advantage when it comes down to
being provided with a lawyer than the poor. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, in 1963, the
Supreme Court decided that to ensure fair trial, a counsel must be provided for the defendants that
cannot afford one. Although the Sixth Amendment only says that someone has the right to a counsel,
the purpose for a lawyer is to protect the innocent. This cannot happen if the lawyer does a poor job
defending their client. This is why the Supreme Court should set a new precedent stating that
everyone is entitled to a high quality defense. A high quality defense would look like someone who
presents good arguments that helps back up a side. They are well prepared and knowledgeable about
the case. Furthermore, they are well rounded people with good interpretation and speaking skills.
Most importantly though, they are good listeners, patient, logical, observance, and open minded
about the issue. With that, they have to be able to know how to deal with the issue and come up with
alternatives.
Gideon was charged for breaking and entering. He could not afford a lawyer and as a result of that
he had requested for a lawyer. However, his request was denied by the judge because the judge
stated that

The Gideon V. Wainwright Case
Everything changes with time. Sometimes that change is good and sometimes it is bad.
Unfortunately, change will happen whether people like it or not, therefore it is best to focus on the
positive components of that change. One aspect of society that constantly changes over time is the
Criminal Justice System. Luckily for humanity, most of the evolution that the criminal justice has
gone through has been positive. The most positive of these changes has been the ongoing evolution
of the defendants' rights in the process of law. America is a society founded and based on freedom.
Therefore, it seems only right that free people, until proven guilty, are treated as free and innocent
people.
The road towards rights for the defendant in the court ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wainwright both made huge progress for the evolution of individual rights the case of Miranda v.
Arizona made huge progress for the criminal justice system. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona,
Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to being taken into police
custody and being interrogated. Chief Justice Warren ruled, however, that the confession could not
be used as evidence during the trial because the police did not inform Miranda of his constitutional
rights. This was a landmark case that completely changed the way police make their arrests. Without
the Miranda rights, it is easy for the defendant to be misled and possibly admit to a crime they did
not commit due to the pressure put on by interrogators. This case is one of the post influential
changes made to the criminal justice system. The United States is a country and society based off of
individual and civil rights. Regardless if the defendant is innocent or guilty it is important that they
are treated as an American citizen with the full rights of an American

The Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright
Another Supreme Court case which was very popular when it was being tried, and still is today, is
the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In this case, which was decided on March 18, 1963, a man named
Clarence Gideon was denied his sixth amendment right to an attorney. Gideon was arrested in
Florida in 1961 for breaking and entering into a pool hall with the intent of committing another
crime there. When he asked for an attorney to represent him because he couldn't afford one, he was
denied of his Sixth Amendment right. When asked why, he was told that by Florida State Law, the
only time an attorney is appointed to the accused is when a person is charged with a capital offense.
Gideon put together a defense as best he could, and represented himself during trial. As can be
expected from a man with no law experience, he lost his case and was found guilty. He was
sentenced to five years in prison, until he filed a habeas corpus petition; meaning a petition saying
he was wrongly imprisoned (pbs.org). When this case went to the Supreme Court, Gideon argued
that he was violated of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, regardless of the status of his case.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 9–0 decision, the right to an attorney should be given in all criminal
prosecutions (oyez.org). This was a huge case for the criminal justice system simply because it
allowed for fair representation for everyone. There were no longer people who went to jail simply
because of the fact that they

The United States Legal System Is Considered One Of The
The United States legal system is considered one of the most reliable legal systems in the world.
This is due to the ability of various stake holders such as law enforcers and law makers to follow
through systematically and adequately what is expected of them by the constitution. Prior to the
establishment of the Bill of Rights in December 1791, many people would often find themselves
accused of crimes they did not commit and would therefore face penalties for such crimes. The legal
system then was not keen on respecting human rights and people of alleged crimes would be put
through cruel methods of interrogation only to later confess to crimes they did not commit. In the
event one was actually guilty of a crime, they had neither the means ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon, was denied his request that an attorney be appointed to represent
him. The Supreme Court later reversed his conviction, holding that defence counsel is "fundamental
and essential" to a fair trial (McBride Gideon v. Wainwright Par. 2). This case that later came to be
known as Gideon v. Wainwright helped shaped the legal system by further defining what rights
criminal defendants had. While legal representation back then was only offered by the state to
criminal defendants whose crimes were serious, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment
requires states to provide defence attorneys to any indigent criminal defendant charged with a felony
(generally a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year) and such was essential to a
fair trial (Par. 3). The Miranda Rights are also statements that the court came up with following the
case of Miranda v. Arizona after the defendant claimed that the police had unconstitutionally
obtained his confession (McBride Miranda v. Arizona Par 1). These rights therefore protect
defendants from self–incrimination and from being subjected to forms of intimidation that compel
confessions. It also restricts the authority of the military in taking over civilian homes and protects
the citizens from unreasonable strategies of search and seizure. Again, it requires that a person
charged with crime should be given due process of law, and that

Believe It Or Not, In The United States, Over 80% Of...
Believe it or not, in the United States, over 80% of Americans who may need a lawyer can not
afford one. In the United States, the majority of this 80% tend to be minorities, as authors Stephen
B. Bright and Sia M. Sanneh state, "Because a major consequence of poverty is often inadequate
representation, racial discrimination in the system as a whole–from stops by police, to disparities in
charging, to the exclusion of blacks and Latinos from juries, to the severity of sentences–often goes
unchallenged and even unremarked upon" (Stephen B. Bright and Sia M. Sanneh). More than fifty
years have passed since the Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright, and the United States
continues to follow legislative procedures inspired by the 1961 ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Born on August 30, 1910, Clarence Gideon was the son a shoemaker who passed away before his
third birthday, and was raised by a strict mom with a boyfriend that Gideon did not get along with.
At the young age of fourteen, California was Gideon's destination after running away from his home
in Missouri. It was only after a year when Gideon found himself back in Missouri. Upon his return
to Missouri, the text states, "When his mother learned that he was living with his uncle near
Hannibal, she had him arrested" (The State Historical). After escaping from jail during the winter,
Gideon broke into stores to try and find warm clothes and keep warm, leading to one of his early
arrests and conviction of stealing (The State Historical). In his troubled early life, Clarence Gideon
frequently found himself in trouble with the law. Gideon managed to cut his time in the prison short,
after he was released on parole after a year. Soon after, he found a job at a shoe factory making a
good load of money. Gideon was in trouble with the law once again after he lost his job and served
more jail time, as the text states, "He was found guilty of robbery, burglary, and larceny and
sentenced to ten years in the Missouri State Penitentiary" (The State Historical). Gideon served a
long 3 years and four months in prison before being released in January 1932, and during this time,
America was in the midst of the Great Depression.

Essay on The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of
law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But,
where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was
arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two
hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used
Miranda's confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and
eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The
Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These rights are derived directly from the constitution. While it doesn't say exactly that, it is what
the Justices determined it meant, which is their job according to the constitution.
Ernesto Miranda's written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a
full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights
nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an
accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that
the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither
knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during
questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn't have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel
pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to
convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn't know he didn't have to answer all the questions, his
confession wasn't voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn't voluntary he was forced to
"witness" against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.
Miranda did not have a lawyer present during his interrogation. There was no indication of whether
he asked for one or not, but we can assume that he didn't know he

Gideon Rule Of Law Case
Issue before the case Does any person arrested for a crime, have the right to an attorney? Rule of
Law: Yes, according to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution every defendant have the right
to an attorney or the Assistance of the legal counsel. Application of Facts (Analysis): On June 1961,
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for felony, breaking and entering in the Bay Harbor Pool room,
Panama City, Florida. Gideon was found with loose coins and a bottle and wine. At trial Gideon
requested the judge to appoint a lawyer for him, as he was unable to afford one. The judge denied
his request to appoint a lawyer, According to Florida state law only defendants charged with "capital
offenses" can be entitled to a lawyer. Gideon argued that

The Criminal Justice System Essay
David Cole wrote, "our criminal justice system affirmatively depends on inequality" (5).
Cole has substantial grounds for making this statement. Race and class have long been issues in the
criminal justice system, but does the system "affirmatively depend on inequality?" Does
the criminal justice system depend on the disparities of the people that it serves?
American justice is supposed to be blind. Despite this there have been many disparities in the justice
system due to racial, social class, and economic reasons. "Absent race and class disparities,
the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we
do..." (Cole 5). The case of Gideon v. Wainwright can be used ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The outcome of Gideon requires government to provide a lawyer to a defendant, "[b]ut as long
as the state provides a warm body with a law degree and a bar admission, little else matters"
(Cole 64). Even though the state provides indigent defense counsel, most are "underpaid,
overworked, and given insufficient resources to conduct an adequate investigation and
defense" (Cole 84). Cole states that in 1990, "[t]he national average per capita spending
on local and state indigent defense was $5.37" (84). Cole also points out other facts about the
ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright:
One of the most remarkable facts about the constitutional right declared in Gideon v. Wainwright is
that it was not a constitutional right for the first 184 years of our Constitution. The Sixth
Amendment guarantees that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' But for most of our history, this right applied only to the
approximately 10 percent of criminal trials that take place in federal court, and even there is meant
only that defendants who had the money to do so could hire and attorney to defend them. (65)
What this establishes is the inequalities of defense in the legal system. Those defendants that cannot
provide their own council are at a disadvantage

Gideon V. Wainwright Case
The American judicial system is built on the idea that any person who is accused of a crime is
innocent until proven guilty. There are many amendments that help protect the rights of the accused.
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right of a speedy trial, the 7th guarantees trial by jury. In 1966,
the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, in a 5–4 vote for Miranda, which established a
guarantee against self incrimination. This was very important for people that are accused of a crime
because they are given the right to remain silent until they talk to their lawyer. Some argue that this
law can put criminals back on the street, however I believe that it also protects the people that are
innocent, but accused of a crime. As Justice Warren stated "Under any other rule, a constitution
would indeed be as easy of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, established the right to a lawyer. In Gideon's case this made a huge
difference because he was found innocent, whereas without a lawyer he was found guilty. As Justice
Black states in his opinion of the court, "We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in
concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights."
I believe this is one of the most important rights given to the accused because they are able to have
an experienced attorney defend them, which could be the difference between them being proven
innocent or guilty. This is still an issue today with all the sexual harassment allegations. Just recently
in November 2017, NBC host Matt Lauer was accused of sexual misconduct, however he had his
rights, but confessed that he was guilty. Although, this is a much smaller scale each person is
considered innocent until they are proven

Essay on Gideon's Trumpet
Gideon's Trumpet
Gideon's Trumpet is the true story of a man named Clarence Earl Gideon, a semiliterate drifter who
is arrested for burglary and petty theft. The book takes it's readers back through one man's moving
account that became a constitutional landmark. Gideon's Trumpet was written to recall the history
behind the Gideon v. Wainwright court case and how it made such an enormous impact on United
States law. On the night of June 3, 1961, Clearance Gideon broke into a pool room and smashed a
cigarette machine and a juke box, taking some money from both and cigarettes. Later that morning a
witness reported seeing Gideon break into the pool hall. The police found him a few hours later with
a pint of wine and some spare ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This led Gideon to file a petition for Habeas Corpus with the supreme court in Florida. His petition
stated that he had been imprisoned illegally. After the Supreme Court of Florida rejected his petition,
he hand wrote a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking
that it hear his case. The Court allowed him to file it in forma pauperis, which meant that the Court
would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition. Gideon's case was considered. The
writ that Gideon wrote was allowed and he was given an attorney and was retried. His attorney for
retrial was Abe Fortas, who was later appointed to Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Gideon was found
innocent of the charges and set free, but what Gideon's petition to the Supreme Court did established
that every person convicted of a crime would be granted an attorney, even he could not afford one.
Gideon's Trumpet is a great book in that instead of just babbling on about how writs are handled by
the Supreme Court, the author Anthony Lewis, takes the book step by step with the Gideon case,
making it less tedious to read and more understandable. I thought that the book was extremely well
written, easy to understand with good definitions. I recommend Gideon's Trumpet to anyone who
wants to learn about the court systems and how one person can change the course of time and law.
"If an obscure Florida convict named

Civil Liberties And Civil Rights
Pegnoglou 4
Gavin Pegnoglou Sherry Sharifian GOVT–2305–71433 6 October 2017 Civil Liberties v Civil
Rights Civil Liberties and Civil Rights is a pillar for every American citizen. Civil Liberties are
specific individual rights a person has that are legally protected from being violated by the
government. 1 Civil Liberties include, but are not limited to, right to privacy, right to vote, right to
bear arms, and right to marry. Civil Rights provide for the right to be treated equally without
discrimination. An easy way to remember the difference between a Civil Liberty and a Civil Right is
that for a Civil Liberty, focus on what right is affected whereas for a Civil Right, focus on whose
right is affected.
2 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I have observed and experienced different infringements of Civil Rights. During my 8th grade year,
my Spanish teacher showed discrimination against male students by choosing a female student to
look over the class every time she stepped out of the classroom. One time, a male student asked her
why she never chose him or a male student from his table. She stated that she trusted girls more than
boys because boys were more likely to horse around and not keep order in the classroom. In my
Spanish class sophomore year, my classmates discriminated against me. The group I was assigned to
were all friends of mine who are of different race and culture. When we discussed grades we
received on individual assignments, they would look genuinely surprised that I had achieved a grade
as good as theirs. I later asked them why and they told me they did not think I was as smart as them
because I am white.
The ADA is a Civil Rights law passed in 1990 to stop discrimination against people who have a
disability in public places such as work, schools, bus stations and any other place that the public can
access. A person with a disability had the right to go to any public place, but until the ADA was
passed, it was very difficult for them to exercise that right. The ADA provides equal opportunities
for people with disabilities in the work place as well. The ADA set a standard for special
accommodations so people with disabilities have easier access to

Court Case: Gideon V. Wainwright
From his prison cell Clearance Earl Gideon composed a petition that despite the search of a man
with lack of education no thing big authorized interest when at the time of the petitioner's trial. Mr.
Gideon asked the lower court for assistance of a legal adviser the court denied this assistance from
the seeker informed the court that the maximum court of justice produced a decision. The aftermath
that all civilians convicted of felony crime should have a legal advisor. The lower court ignored the
plea. Every year thousands of pauper petitions like these are sent to the maximum court of justice to
the supreme court less are at any point heard but this petition hurt a responsible line. The court
imply the importance of the caused when it appointed Abe Fortas one of the best recognized lawyer
in Washington DC to represent Gideon in what ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wainwright. The court furiously noted that "in our advisory system of criminal justice any person,
hauled into the court who is to poor to hire an attorney, cannot be assured of a clean trial unless a
legal

Gideon V Wtenwright And The Case Of Gideon V Wainwright
When charged with a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights a person has the right to counsel in state courts. People who are poor, needy or doesn't the
means to afford legal counsel for criminal cases that have that right are known as "indigent
defendants." By not providing these people with counsel is a violation of the Sixth Amendment and
the Bill of Rights. Before the case of Gideon v Wainwright, there were others cases of individuals
that were denied the right to counsel. One case in particular, which fell under the Fourteenth
Amendment Rights as well as the Sixth Amendment Rights of the Constitution, Betts v Brady
(1942). Betts was indicted on robbery charges in Carroll County, Maryland. Betts wasn't able to
afford an attorney and requested appointed counsel. Betts was told by the judge that it wasn't the
practice in the county unless it was for a murder case or rape. Without counsel Betts pleaded not
guilty, represented himself and was sentenced to eight years by the judge. Betts wasn't well educated
and knew nothing about the legal system on how to represent himself in a court of law. While
incarcerated Betts filed a petition against the judge for denying him the right to counsel but it was
denied. Betts presented a writ of corpus which was also denied. The Supreme Court of the United
States went back and reviewed Betts case after Gideon filed his case. The decision for Betts case
was eventually

The Gideon V. Wainwright Case
The case centred on Clarence Gideon, who was charged with a felony for allegedly burglarizing a
pool hall in Panama City, Florida, in the year of 1961. During his first trial he had requested an
attorney that was appointed by the court but was denied. Prosecutors had produced witnesses who
had seen Gideon at the exterior of the pool hall near the time of the break–in, but none saw him
actually commit the crime. Gideon examined witnesses, but he was unable to validate their
credibility or highlight the contradictions in their testimony. The jury had found him guilty, then he
was eventually given a five year prison sentence. Gideon v. Wainwright, was the landmark case of
1963 in U.S Supreme Court history. The Supreme Court ruled that states are

Gideon V. Wainwright Case Summary
Emily Martin
Mr. Burke pd:2
5/11/15
U.S. Government
Facts of the Case Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a official felony, when he broke into a
pool room and had thoughts to commit a serious misdemeanor offense. He was not a rich man;
therefore he could not afford a lawyer to serve on his defense. He had asked the judge to appoint
him one, because according to the sixth amendment, one has the right to an attorney. However the
state of Florida would not give him one. With this being said, Gideon was found guilty and
sentenced five years in prison. During the five years he was in jail, he took the time to write a letter
to the Florida Supreme Court explaining his situation and how he was not appointed an attorney.
Due to his commitment, the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
Lower court Verdict The first step of the procedure was to go through a lower court. The Lower
Court that Gideon v. Wainwright went through was the Bay County Circuit court, which was the
fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This trial judge also denied that Gideon's request for an
appointed attorney. Under the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However the Florida Supreme Court denied the case. Gideon found relief from his conviction by
filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. A writ of habeas corpus is a
calling with the force of court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and said that the
judge's refusal to appoint an attorney violated his constitutional rights. However, the Florida
Supreme Court still denied his petition. Gideon did not give up. He next filed a handwritten petition
to send to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the
question of whether the right to counsel or the right to an attorney is guaranteed under the Sixth
Amendment and applies to defendants in state

History and Development of the Sixth Amendment Essay
Muthu S. Weerasinghe Constitutional Law LS 305 – 01 Unit 7 Essay The Sixth Amendment of the
Bill of Rights contains seven clauses that protect the rights of the accused. The amendment assures
the accused that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). In this case eight, young black men were convicted and sentenced to
death in a racially tense Alabama, where the trial was carried out expediently, while denying the
right to counsel for the defendants. Once the case was heard by the Supreme Court, Justice
Sutherland stated that "the Court, always requires the observance of certain fundamental personal
rights associated with a hearing, and ''the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character.''
("Assistance of counsel," 2004) Justice Sutherland included that ''The right to be heard would be, in
many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the
intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged
with crimes, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or
bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on
trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to
the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his
defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in
the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction
because he does not know how to establish his

Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Study
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the case begins with Gideon arrest in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon
was a drifter who was in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes. On January 3, 1961, 51–year–old
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City,
Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Giedion was
charged with a felony in the state of Florida. Gideon appeared in the Florida court and informed the
judge that he would like to be appointed counsel because he could not afford one. The judge denied
Gideon's request to be appointed an attorney. The courts stated that under Florida law the only time
an indigent defendant is entitled to be appointed counsel is when

Gideon's Trumpet Analysis Essay
Everyday people around the nation are brought to trial. The litigants may or may not have sufficient
resources, but are still entitled to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. Clarence Earl Gideon was
accused of felony by the state of Florida and did not have the money for attorney representation.
Instead, Gideon had to approach the Florida court system blinded by the rules of litigation and
unaware of the processes of making an argument. He was helpless and could not win the battle,
eventually being sentenced to five years in prison. In America, people are supposed to be treated
equal in the eyes of the law, yet Gideon's circumstance was unjust. As he ultimately reached the
Supreme Court of the United States, Gideon was given an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Their past experience and extensive access to resources gives them a persuasive edge in the courts.
Gideon, on the other hand, worked against his shortcomings as a one–shooter. By filing a writ of
certiorari, which the Court granted, Gideon was issued Abes Fortas as his lawyer. According to
Galanter, "lawyers are themselves RPs" (Galanter 167). This representation was valuable because of
past experiences and specialization that Fortas brought forth to the Court and to his client. Being
that "the Court naturally tends to pick men known to one or more of the justices personally or by
reputation," Gideon slowly gained an advantage (Gideon 49). This established a sense of equality
and provided more power and credibility to the initiator. On the other hand, Florida did have its
Attorney General representing the state, in order to defend and withhold the power of the state. The
lawyer–client relationship was much stronger between the federal and state court, rather than Fortas
and Gideon. After all, the closer a relationship is the "more telling the advantages of accumulated
expertise and guidance in overall strategy" (Galanter 205). Furthermore, Gideon did not have the
money or even the ability to sway the public. Today, the media tends to lend support to the smaller
party, which influences public opinion and plays a large role in persuading a judge's values and
deciding a case.
Judicial decision–making is often

Due Process and Crime Control
The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as
well as in the area of civil liberties–specifically, the rights of the accused as addressed in
Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost
every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to
extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This process became known as the
"nationalization" of the Bill of Rights. During those years, cases concerning the right to legal
counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court's
docket.
The Warren Court's began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, which was ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on
Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and
should not further cripple the work of police.
By a 5–4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared
that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that "procedural safeguards effective to secure the
privilege against self–incrimination" are followed. The current practice of 'incommunicado'
interrogation is that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.
Warren then summarized the case, measuring it against the "fundamental fairness" standards the
Court had established. "It is clear," he wrote, "that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right
to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to
be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Without these
warnings [his] statements were inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement which
contained a typed–in clause stating that he had 'full knowledge' of his 'legal rights' does not
approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights."
Turning to the standard for a valid waiver of rights, Warren wrote: "A valid waiver will not be
presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are

Gideon V Wainwright Essay
The foundation of modern right to counsel through court–appointed attorneys at the expense of the
government for an indigent defendant accused of a serious crime was made possible by the ruling in
a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). The
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense" (U.S. Const. amend. VI).
The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme
Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a
crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on
constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under "the principles of a civilized society"
(Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended
beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney. For over one hundred years, the right ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are
required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent
defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to
counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case
of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent
defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court–appointed attorney at the government's
expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle "that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor
as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel" (Fortas,

Origins Of The United States
Origins of the book[edit]
At any given moment in the judicial history of the United States one has witnessed where the
Supreme Court has rendered decisions based upon the learned jurisprudence of its constituent
members and their respective backgrounds. Each of the individual Supreme Court Justices bring
with them an ideological perspective whether be it conservative or liberal of their view of the
interpretation of the Constitution.1 With that ideology comes their application of the law with
respect to the myriad and complexity of cases that are heard before the Court. Two such cases in
which there was witnessed a distinct ideological change in the opinion of the Supreme Court with
respect to the Sixth Amendment include Betts v. Brady (1942) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).2
These two cases pondered and deliberated the argument over the course of twenty–one years as to
whether defendants in a criminal case are entitled to court appointed counsel under the guarantees of
the Sixth Amendment should they not be able to afford one. During the time period between these
two landmark Supreme Court cases there were other factors which helped contribute to the change
in Court's opinion. These factors include a change in Supreme Court membership, the change in the
political and cultural environment, as well as the change in interest group involvement between the
two cases. The purpose of this paper is to show how the ideological leanings and perspective of the
Supreme Court

Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Study
372 U.S. 335 (1963) Gideon v. Wainwright, corrections director. No. 155 Supreme Court of the
United States Clarence Earl Gideon was a man with an 8th grade education only. He was convicted
of Petty larceny in the state of Florida. The facts of the case are as follows. Gideon made a phone
call outside of the pool hall around 5:30am the same time the pool hall was robbed. He was seen
inside the pool hall, and outside the pool hall by an eye witness. Gideon asked the court to appoint a
lawyer to represent him, and he was denied.At the trial Gideon defended himself as best as he could.
He was unsuccessful and was convicted of breaking and entering. Gideon was sentenced to 5 years
in prison, the maximum sentence for the crime. He asked

Gideon's Trumpet Essay
Gideon's Trumpet On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from
prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope
contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied
a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon's writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis
petition or pauper's petition. Due to the fact that most paupers' petitions are from inmates who do
not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling
cases such as Gideon's. Paupers' petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were "almost
unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The main challenge Gideon needed to overcome was the regulations instituted by the 1942 court
case Betts v. Brady. Betts v. Brady established that only in special circumstances were impoverished
criminals entitled to counsel. These special circumstances often required some form of mental or
physical disability in which Clarence Earl Gideon did not have. The courts had to then examine if
legal counsel was an essential right to due process. Although Gideon was not given counsel during
his state trial, his case had traveled its' way to the Supreme Court which allowed him to obtain a
lawyer. On June 22nd 1962, the Court appointed Abe Fortas, a Washington lawyer. Fortas had to
make the hard decision of choosing whether to attempt to overturn the Betts v. Brady case or
undertake the challenge of proving that Gideon fell under the special circumstances principle.
Through numerous correspondences with Gideon, Fortas decided to try and overturn Betts v. Brady.
Fortas' main obstacle with the Gideon case was proving that counsel was necessary to Justices
Frankfurter and Black who symbolically represented two differing judicial philosophies. Justice
Frankfurter was often associated with the phrase "Judicial self restraint". His ideology preferred
judicial matters to be solved within congress and the states. Frankfurter believed that relying too
much on judges would hinder the freedoms of the people and corrupt the nation's concept of
democracy. Justice John Marshall

Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court Case
Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the
defendant's right of the sixth amendment. If it was not for a man in his prison cell that wrote to the
Supreme Court, the United States court systems would not be the same today. Clarence Gideon was
arrested because he stole money from a pool hall's vending machines. At trial he could not afford an
attorney and was not appointed counsel. If it was not for Gideon who wrote to the Supreme Court
petitioning his constitutional rights he would have never had the opportunity to be heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Although Clarence Gideon was an uneducated and poor citizen, he still was able to
petition his constitutional rights to the United States Supreme court in order to achieve a truly fair
trial. He ended discrimination in the courts against the poor who cannot afford their own counsel.
Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the
defendant's right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the
6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one
for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful
job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the
U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court
agreed to hear his case.

Gideon V Wainwright Case Study
The reversal of Miranda's case set forth the start to a new, and controversial, perspective on citizen's
rights within the law. While incarcerated, Miranda heard about the Gideon v Wainwright case court
decision, which established that any person on trial had a constitutional right to legal counsel for
felony charges in state courts. Inspired by this, Miranda sought new counsel and appealed his case to
the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 22, 1965, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari,
which orders the lower courts to deliver records from a case so that the higher courts can review it.
Within the court, Justices reviewed Miranda's confession in light of the Fifth amendment; they also
examined the Sixth amendment, right to counsel as

Case Study : Gideon V. Wainwright
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Name of Case: ____Gideon v. Wainwright_________
Year: ___1963____ 1. What is the essential question of this case? Did the state court's failure to
appoint a lawyer for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 2. Using the evidence you found during your reading,
summarize the background of this case in three complete sentences. A witness saw Clarence Earl
Gideon break into Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida where beer and wine were stolen.
The judge at trial did not provide a lawyer to represent Gideon because he had no money to pay for
a attorney which violated his 6th amendment. After Gideon was found guilty and ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
That ultimately overruled its 1942 decision in betts Brady case. 5. What was the impact of this case
on society? The case studies impact on society is that the police in forest more strictly. It was
required that everyone has had the right to an attorney. 6. Why is this case considered a landmark?
The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which
eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court
called this an "obvious truth" where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed
without the assistance of counsel. Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Name of Case:
_______Miranda v. Arizona___________ Year: ____1966______ 1. What is the essential question
of this case? Does the police practice of questioning individuals without notifying them of their right
to a lawyer and their protection against self–incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? 2. Using
the evidence you found during your reading, summarize the background of this case in three
complete sentences. A witness accused Ernesto Miranda, A poor Mexican immigrant in Arizona in
1963 for committing a crime. When the police arrested Miranda, they did not tell Miranda his rights
to not self incriminate and that he was appointed to an attorney if he could not provide one

Escobedo V. Illinois Case Study
Escobedo v. Illinois Monsees,
Escobedo v. Illinois: Right to seek counsel
Mark Monsees
Liberty High School
AP – Government
3A/B
The right to consult a lawyer when being questioned by the police is a very important right as it
could potentially save an individual from being convicted for whatever he or she has been accused
of. This case was centered on Danny Escobedo who was taken into custody by the Chicago police
department on January 20th, 1964, for the shooting of his brother–in–law. During Escobedo?s
interrogation he continuously asked to consult with his lawyer. The authorities in charge of
Escobedos interrogation refused to provide a lawyer for Escobedo, which ultimately ended up with
him confessing to the murder of his brother in law. Being forced into confessing to the murder of his
brother in law drove Escobedo to take his case to the supreme court under the premise that his sixth
amendment right of right to counsel, which didn?t apply constitutional to felony offences until the
1963 supreme court case Gideon v. Wainwright. (Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved
January 9, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155) The Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution gives everyone the right to counsel, which essentially means that the accused party has
the right to consult a lawyer during interrogation. This idea was used as the main argument for
Escobedo?s court case along with the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright 1963. This court
case center around Clarence Earl Gideon who was charged with a felony after ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Illinois." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2015 Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
"Sixth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2015 Web.
07 Dec. 2015. "Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez.org. IIT Chicago–Kent College of Law, 2015 Web. 07
Dec. 2015.
"The Fourth Amendment." (2015): n. Www.gpo.gov. 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.ec.

Supreme Court Case: Gideon V. Wainwright
Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to
defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea
bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many
respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to
an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the
Orange County Public Defender's office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they
cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office's attorneys.
But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S., ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For the public defenders and prosecutors, I will ask the head of each group for verbal consent to
carry out the research. For the homeless population, I will use convenience sampling when sending
out surveys. I will walk around the general vicinity and ask the clients, if they can spare 15 minutes
for the research. They will be asked to complete a series of questions. The surveys will differ
depending on the group. For the public defenders, the questions will focus on the scope of the issues
that their office faces. When it comes to the prosecutors, the questions will focus on whether or not,
they want any change to the current state of affairs. Lastly, for the clients, the questions will focus
on their experience with the criminal justice system and what kind of changes they

Gideon Vs. Wainwright Essay
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments
and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on
Constitutional amendments.      GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT
     In June 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with
breaking and entering in Bay Harbor. He was tried in a Florida Circuit Court in August 1961.
Gideon stated in Court that he was unable to afford a lawyer and asked the Judge to appoint one for
him. The Judge said he was sorry but he could not do that, because the laws of Florida called for
appointment of counsel only when a defendant was charged with a capital offense [where the death
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Since Gideon was proceeding without funds, it gave the Justice a chance to think about the
constitution. He appointed a counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their
briefs and oral arguments. Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?"
PRECEDENTS      The Supreme Court first dealt with the issue in
1932, in the Scottsboro Case, POWELL v. ALABAMA. DUE PROCESS OF LAW required al least
a "hearing," Justice GEORGE H. SUTHERLAND said, and the presence of the counsel was
"fundamental" to a meaningful hearing.      However, Sutherland
said that the Court was not deciding whether poor defendants had a right to free counsel in all
situations, beyond the aggravated ones of this case: a capital charge, tried in haste and under public
pressure.      In JOHNSON v. ZERBST (1928) the court read the
6th Amendment to require the appointment of counsel for all indigent federal criminal defendants.
Betts v. Brady (1942)      The facts on which Betts claimed that he
had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are similar to
the facts on Gideon. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he
told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him.
Betts was advised that is was not

The Sixth Amendment Rights : The Bill Of Rights
In 1791, the United States Constitution implemented the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the
individuals by listing specific prohibition of governmental power. The Bill of Rights consisted of the
first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, including the Sixth Amendment, the right to
counsel. The Betty v. Betts case, Gideon v. Wainwright case, and Shelton v. Alabama case, all
demonstrate how many individuals have been restricted of their Sixth Amendment right, especially
at the state level, however, once the individuals appealed to a higher authority, the rights were
typically granted. These three court cases have significantly impacted the issue of the Sixth
Amendment right throughout the past 80 years by causing the Supreme Court to reassess the
amendment leading to fairer trials for more defendants. Throughout United States history, the Sixth
Amendment right was frequently violated at the state level, but as defendants appealed to the
Supreme Court, they were almost always granted the right to counsel from the Constitution. The
addition of the Sixth Amendment was ratified in the Constitution of the United States to guarantee
rights to criminal defendants. This amendment stated, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained
by law, and to be informed of the

Gideon's Trumpet
Gideon's Trumpet, by: Anthony Lewis
Clarence Earl Gideon was born on August 30, 1910 in Missouri. Gideon lost his father when he was
three years old. His home life was non existent as he ran away from home when he finished eighth
grade and started living his life as a homeless drifter. By the time that Gideon reached the age of
sixteen he had an extensive list of petty crimes. At age eighteen he was arrested in Missouri and
convicted of robbery, larceny and burglary. Gideon was sentenced to ten years in prison but was
released in 1932 after serving three years.
Gideon would spend most of the next thirty years in poverty and in and out of prison. Throughout
this time he was married four times, the first three marriages ended ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
On August 27th, 1961, three days before his 52nd birthday, Judge McCrary gave Gideon the
maximum sentence of five years in prison. This would be the beginning of a journey Gideon never
imagined would impact the judicial system so strongly; nor did he realize that his name would
become synonymous with the rights of the poor to have legal counsel in any judicial defense.
From the beginning Gideon was tormented with his inability to have received counsel due to his
financial situation. He began reading law books in the prison library and then began his study of the
American legal system. He came to the conclusion that Judge McCrary had violated his
constitutional rights to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, applicable to the state through the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
He almost immediately wrote to an FBI office in Florida, but he was denied help. On October 30,
1961 less than thirty days from when he was sentenced he applied to the Florida Supreme Court for
a writ of habeas corpus, an order freeing him on the ground that he was illegally imprisoned. Finally,
on the morning of January 8, 1962, the Supreme Court of the United States received an envelope
from prisoner No. 003826 of Florida State Prison; Gideon had hand written a five page petition to
the United States Supreme Court. The envelope was sent to an assistant clerk of the Supreme Court,
Michael Rodak, Jr. It would be Mr. Rodak's

Gideon V Wainwright Pros And Cons
The Sixth Amendment is part of the United States Bill of Rights and its clauses are related to
criminal prosecutions. It states that every defendant has the right of speedy and public trial,
impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to
have the aid of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney's assistance has been focused on two
main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and the right to an effective counsel.
When the Constitution was adopted, courts in Britain did not appoint lawyers to defendants charged
with felonies, opposite to those who were accused of misdemeanors. This practice was not executed
by the American colonies and most of the original thirteen ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Wainwright is an important case when it comes to the Sixth Amendment because it resulted in a
more rigorous application of the right to counsel. The right to an attorney was no longer based on
the individual case. On the other hand it is a perfect example of the controversy which can occur
when it comes to the application of this particular Amendment. The Sixth Amendment's clause on
counsel assistance has also been challenged in regards to the right to an effective performance on the
count of the attorney. This concept demonstrates that the fulfillment of the right extends further than
just the mere appointment of legal defense. The case Anthony Ray Hinton which reached is
prolonged conclusion in 2015 demonstrates what harm can be caused by the inadequate
performance of an attorney. Hinton was convicted for a two murders during armed robberies. The
only evidence provided by the prosecution during his trial was a ballistic expertise which matched
the bullets found at the scene of the crime and the gun of the defendant's mother. Hinton's defense
attorney failed to provide the funding that was needed for expert witnesses which would have been
able to rebut the prosecutions expertise. Anthony Ray Hinton was declared guilty and sentenced to

The Fundamental Principle Of Fairness And Equal Rights
The Due Process is a fundamental principle of fairness and equal rights that becomes a basis for all
legal matters. It is a general concept of equality but can be interpreted and applied widely depending
on situations and cases. The idea of Due Process starts from the most basic level of rights and
protection that the founders of United States craved for. Under the strict restrictions from the
England government, the citizens of United States desired for fair rights and protection under
governmental power. As the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self–
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," the Due
Process is deeply involved in the structure of society starting from the legal foundation of the United
States. The Due Process exhibits its true qualities in court cases by becoming a constitutional
protection for individuals in front of the decision of judge. In the court, the only available resource
that people can refer to is the constitution. The constitution becomes the standard that the court
should follow when making judgments. The Due Process is applied in the court cases under the 5th
amendment in the constitution to protect individuals, which allows the constitution to illustrate the
principle of fairness in a documented form. The Due Process clause under the 5th amendment exists
to defend rights of

Recognizing Our Rights
We as citizens should recognize that any of our rights in the Constitution is subjected to continual
interpretation by our courts, especially by the United States Supreme Court. As of today, our Sixth
Amendment still allows us as American citizens to "Due Process", as well as other important rights.
This particular right requires police and government officials to recognize our due process rights,
especially as suspects during an arrest, questioning, and handling. During an arrest and prior to
questioning, a defendant is usually advised of their constitutional rights, as enumerated in the U.S.
Supreme Court decision of Miranda V. Arizona. Our right to "due process" does not hold an
discrimination to whether you are a poor or rich ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Once a parent or guardian is present and law officials have let the juvenile understand of his right to
counsel and the juvenile waivers those rights, their again must the request to waiver be in writing
and signed by the juvenile defendant. After this procedure, including within all other age situation
procedures, if counsel is requested by defendant at their own ability, law officials must wait
patiently before they administer questioning. Although, law officials do not have to wait hours at a
time for the defendants counsel, they can appoint a temporary counsel in effort to grant the legal
right to proceed until the defendants counsel appears. The same scenario happened with the case of
United States v. Wade. Throughout history there are several Supreme Court cases that have allowed
continual interpretation of certain constitutional rights dealing with the right to counsel, line–ups,
and juvenile's due process rights. Few cases concerning the right to counsel includes, "Betts v.
Brady" 1942, "Brewer v. Williams" 1977, and "Gideon v. Wainwright" 1963. To include cases that
pertained with line–ups and show–ups, "Gilbert v. California" 1967 and "United States v. Wade"
1967. Last but not least some cases that handled juveniles of due processing rights, "Breed v. Jones"
1975 and "Kent v. U.S." 1966. Some many American

Gideon's Trial Analysis
Clarence Earl Gideon, white, middle–aged, previously convicted felon, was either innocent or not.
Boiled down, this was the question at stake in both Gideon's original trial and the second one, and a
question which blossomed to an even bigger issue that would be brought to the Supreme Court–that
of the question of fairness in a court trial. This paper will examine these three trials at length,
comparing the differences between them, and address the validity of the Supreme Court decision to
overrule precedent in trial procedure. Gideon's first trial seemed rather straightforward, with a single
judge, a jury, a prosecutor, but missing something important–a defending lawyer. This led to the
negative outcome of the first trial, and the events that brought Gideon's case to the Supreme Court.
The presentation thereof differed greatly in the Supreme Court trial, as Gideon wasn't present and
the question became less of his supposed guilt or innocence and more of the fairness of the first trial.
In place of a single judge and jury, nine judges oversaw the questioning of two lawyers, one on each
side of the issue arguing for and against the result of Gideon's ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When asked by the judge if he was ready for his trial, Gideon's response was negative due to the fact
that he didn't have a lawyer, an injustice he claimed was unconstitutional. The prosecuting lawyer
performed his job, and defenseless Gideon suffered as a result. The prosecution was also present in
the Supreme Court case, but this time with a highly competent opponent as the defense. This case
was won by the defense crafted by Fortas, ruling in favor of Gideon and allowing his second trial to
occur, this time with proper representation given by Fred Turner, a local attorney. This showcased
that the knowledge and skill brought to the table by trained lawyers is unequalled by the common
man in matters of the

Civil Rights Case Study
Throughout American history the United States Supreme Court has seen a multitude Civil Rights
cases. Criminal Rights is the branch of Civil Rights cases that will be evaluated in this paper.
Criminal Rights cases date back to the early twentieth century, and the majority of Criminal Rights
cases are over 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights. These cases are important to the public because
anyone could commit a crime. The people of the U.S deserve rights under any circumstances even if
they are criminals. Regarding the issue of Criminal Rights, the US Supreme Court remained mostly
conservative as to how criminals in trial should be treated. The continuing issue is examined through
Powell v. Alabama (1932), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and Miranda ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Arizona (1963). Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where
he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. Despite two hours of
police interrogation, Miranda was never advised of his right to attorney and defended himself in
court. The jury found Miranda guilty. The Supreme Court argued if the Fifth Amendment's
protection against self–incrimination extends to the police interrogation of a suspect (Oyez). Chief
Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion that the suspect must be aware that anything he
says can be used against him in a court of law and that if at any point her requests an attorney there
will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives (Oyez). In comparison to the precedent cases
Miranda v. Arizona (1963) stayed true to original court rulings. All three court cases ruled that a
defendant has a right to an attorney and must be provided one if they can not provide one on their
own. The only difference with Miranda v. Arizona (1963) is the court ruled the defendant must be
read their Miranda Rights, or their right to remain silent before interrogation with an attorney
present. The addition of Miranda Rights to establish guidelines for how detained suspects should be
given their

Gideon's Case Study
In 1961, a man named Clarence Earl Gideon went to court in order to try and prove his innocence.
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is
a felony under Florida law. Gideon had to represent himself, for he had little money and not enough
for a lawyer. He asked the judge if he could be appointed a lawyer to defend him, but the judge
denied Gideon's request on account that he wasn't helplessly broke and he hadn't committed a capital
offense. But against the odds, he put effort into representing himself. But due to the lack of
experience and tactics, he defended himself very poorly and he wasn't able to win and he was
sentenced to five years in prison. While in jail, Gideon was able to study

Gideon V. Wainwright Case

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Nina Vazquez

More from Nina Vazquez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gideon V. Wainwright Case