0
The reason the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gideon v. Wainwright is that it addressed important constitutional issues of Due Process, which is supposed to apply equally to all defendants under the law. The case specifically reviewed application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel that, prior to the ruling in Gideon, required indigent defendants to represent themselves in most State criminal cases. This put them at an unfair disadvantage because, unlike the government prosecutor, most defendants possessed no legal training (some were even illiterate) and couldn't receive a fair trial under those circumstances.
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.
An earlier case, Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) had already extended that right to state defendants in capital (death penalty) cases, but the Supreme Court later allowed the states to exercise case-by-case discretion with regard to providing attorneys for other serious criminal offenses in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942).
Case Citation:
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoIn Gideon v Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, one must be provided to him or her by the state government (this requirement already applied to the federal government). As a result, the Supreme Court incorporated clauses of the Sixth Amendment to the states, meaning the decision applied to all states (and municipalities), not just Florida where the case originated.
This is important because, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel, it did not guarantee counsel to indigent defendants unless the sentence carried a possibility of the death penalty; therefore, less wealthy and less educated defendants were at a severe disadvantage because the lacked knowledge of relevant laws, procedures and rights. Even though there is still an obvious wealth gap in the quality of legal assistance that people find, this case established a more equal level of due process.
Gideon v Wainwright was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida, on January 15th, 1963, and decided on March 18th, 1963.
Case Citation:
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)
Anonymous
the court ruled that every person accused of a felony had the right to counsel
GRad point ;)
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was the outcome of the case of Gideon vs Wainwright?
Gideon vs. Wainwright is a US Supreme Court Case from 1963. The vote was unanimous. This court case decided under the fourth amendment, state courts are required to provide an attorney in criminal cases when the defendant cannot afford one.
what was the Gideon VS Wainwright case in 1963?
Clarence Gideon was accused of breaking into a pool hall in Florida . he asked for a lawyer , but Florida law at the time only provided for court appointed lawyers in capital / death penalty cases . Gideon lost the original case . but won his appeal to the supreme court , where the court ruled that the 6th amendment right to a lawyer applied to felony cases. if the defendant could not afford a lawyer, the state had to provide one .
Was there any national events going on during the supreme court case Gideon vs Wainwight?
Yes, there were several significant national events occurring during the Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court case. Some notable events include the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the Civil Rights Movement and ongoing demonstrations against racial segregation, and the escalating involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War.
Prior to the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright, why was Clarence Gideon in jail?
Being refused a lawyer by the state of Florida..... apex... makes no sense to me but its right apparently
What did the Supreme Court rule in the 1950 case Sweatt vs painter?
The district court decision on the Sweatt vs Painter case was to grant the plaintiff a writt of mandamus and continued the case for 6 months.
In the book Gideon's Trumpet why does the Texas attorney general oppose the appeal of Gideon's case?
convictions of criminals would be more difficult if the Court ruled in Gideon's favor & because they would be required to provide attorneys for poor defendants at taxpayer expense if Gideon prevailed. according to: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595570/gideon_v_wainwright.html also in the book it briefly mentioned that they (politicians in general) didn't want the supreme court second guessing themselves and overruling their decision about the betts vs. brady case
What did the supreme court decide in the ford vs wainwright case?
In plain English it says that if you are psycholigically diagnosed to be insane you cannot be executed for the offense of murder.Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399(1986), was the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be executed.
How did supreme court rule in McCulloch vs Maryland?
They said that a public official has more power than a state does.
How did the Supreme Court rule in McCulloch vs. Maryland?
They said that a public official has more power than a state does.
What did the supreme court rule in furman v. Georgia?
In Furman vs. Georgia the court ruled that all existing death penalty laws violated the constitution.
What did the US Supreme Court rule in Furman v Georgia?
In Furman vs. Georgia the court ruled that all existing death penalty laws violated the constitution.
What new policy was established by the US Supreme Court's landmark Gideon vs Wainwright ruling?
The US Supreme Court set a precedent requiring states to provide court-appointed counsel to indigent criminal defendants by applying the Sixth Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.ExplanationThe US Supreme Court overturned the earlier decision in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942), which held states weren't required to provide court-appointed counsel at trial, and failure to do so didn't violate a defendant's Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) the Supreme Court unanimously held that states had to provide free legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants. The Court asserted that poor people were being deprived of their Sixth Amendment constitutional right to an attorney, which applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The condition of poverty placed defendants in a position of not receiving the same opportunity for a fair trial (due process) as people who could afford to hire an attorney, which was unconstitutional.
