Why did the US Supreme Court believe poor defendants are entitled to have an attorney provided for them?

Answer 1

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark US Supreme Court case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. In this case, the Court ruled emphatically that indigent defendants were entitled to court-appointed lawyers at critical stages of prosecution, including arraignment and trial.

Justice Hugo Black explained, in the opinion of the Court, that laymen are not knowledgeable enough to mount a competent defense in Court, and therefore all felony defendants are entitled to legal counsel. Those who can afford to hire an attorney retain private counsel; those who can't, are appointed free counsel. (Depending on a person's income, he or she may be expected to pay a portion of the attorney fees.)

Since poor defendants can't afford to pay an attorney, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause places the onus on the state or federal government to provide one for them; otherwise, they would have fewer rights under the law than someone with money, depriving them of due process.

Justice Black wrote:

"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 crime, 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 innocence."


For more information, see Related Questions, below.