The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and requested a court-appointed attorney but was denied. He was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court later unanimously ruled that Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated, establishing that states must provide attorneys for criminal defendants unable to afford their own counsel.

1. By:Derek SchiebelAlex Reller Gideon v. Wainwright

2. Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Clarence Gideon violate his right to a fair trial?Reason For Trial

3. Supreme Court JusticesChief Justice Warren Black Douglas Clark Harlan Brennan Stewart White Goldberg

4. Argued January 15, 1963.Clarence Earl Gideon vs. Wainwright, FloridaGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering.When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to poverty-stricken defendants in capital cases. Gideon was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.Basic Facts about the Case

5. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.“ Clarence Gideon believed he had been violated of this rightConstitutional Issues

6. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Conclusion

7. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Black commented that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”Decided March 18, 19639-0 decision (unanimous) for Gideon’s sideConclusion

8. In our piece of mind, we thought that the right victor was chosen, and that he deserved a free trial and not with a un-educated lawyer that he was assigned.Our opinion

9. What is the meaning of this compared to the case?Poor people wear barrelsThe poor cannot get good enough representationPerry Mason wore a barrelLawyers are idiots

10. What is the meaning of this compared to the case?Poor people wear barrelsThe poor cannot get good enough representationPerry Mason wore a barrelLawyers are idiots

11. What is this political cartoon trying to say about due process? A. Republicans don’t like the citizens B. The government is against fair trials C. Fair trial is always attempted, but not always fulfilled D. People have no chance against the government E. None of the Above F. All of the Above

12. What is this political cartoon trying to say about due process? A. Republicans don’t like the citizens B. The government is against fair trialsC. Fair trial is always attempted, but not always fulfilled D. People have no chance against the government E. None of the Above F. All of the Above

13. "Gideon v. Wainwright." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0372_0335_ZO.html>."Gideon v. Wainwright, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument." The Oyez Project | Build 6. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155>."Gideon v. Wainwright@Everything2.com." Welcome to Everything@Everything2.com. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. <http://everything2.com/?node_id=533754>.Works Cited

15. Producer: Derek Schiebel