An unknown person broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register.
Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with Gideon v wainwright to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under [p] Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon the following colloquy took place: 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. Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument "emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case.
Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government.
Sincewhen Betts v. Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: 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 it was not the practice in that county to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases.
He then pleaded not guilty, had witnesses summoned, cross-examined the State's witnesses, examined his own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Betts was denied any relief, and, on review, this Court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, for reasons given, the Court deemed to be the only applicable federal constitutional provision.
Asserted denial [of due process] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.
Treating due process as "a concept less rigid and more fluid than those envisaged in other specific and particular provisions of the Bill of Rights," the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so "offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness" as to amount to a denial of due process.
Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding, if left standing, would require us to reject Gideon's claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel.
Upon full reconsideration, we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled. In response, the Court stated that, while the Sixth Amendment laid down no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In order to decide whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and considered [r]elevant data on the subject.
On the basis of this historical data, the Court concluded that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.Story Clarence Earl Gideon v. Wainwright Abstract: The Story of Gideon v.
Wainwright Over forty years ago, a poor man named Clarence Earl Gideon sat in a Florida prison cell doing five years for a pool hall burglary in which about five dollars, several beers, and a few bottles of soda were stolen.
Mr. Gideon was not guilty. How did this happen? Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: "Should this Court's holding in Betts v.
When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him.
According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Wainwright () Right to Counsel, Due Process "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell to write a letter to the Supreme Court the vast machinery of American law .
In Betts v. Brady, however, (), the court decided that assigned counsel was not required in felony cases except when there were special circumstances, notably if the defendant was illiterate or mentally challenged.
On January 15, , the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gideon v. Wainwright. Gideon v. Wainwright, U.S. (), is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In it, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys.