Gideon v . Wainwright (1963)

1. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Right to Councel

2. Previous Precident: Betts v. Brady (1942) • Betts was indicted for robbery and detained in a Maryland jail. • Before his trial he asked for counsel to represent him • He was denied and convicted • He filed a writ of habeas corpus, and eventually appealed all the way to the Supreme Court

3. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Betts, yet they stated that the right to counsel must be decided on a case by case basis. Supreme Court case: Betts v. Brady

4. Clarence Earl Gideon Personal History His father died when he was three His mother remarried two years later His mother and stepfather were factory workers and thus pretty poor

5. He has an assortment of odd jobs and numerous stays in prison, usually for burglary He married four times In 1957, he moved to Panama City and worked as a mechanic. His family left him after he was in jail again The next 33 years

6. Shortly before the infamous poolroom burglary, Gideon was arrested twice for crimes he hadn’t committed. The FBI believed he was guilty of a break-in at the local armory because he had been convicted of a similar crime 25 years earlier. When the Bay Harbor Bar was robbed, they also suspected Gideon. They couldn’t find evidence in either case so they threw him in jail for vagrancy. A month after his release, he was arrested for breaking into the Bay Harbor Poolroom The next 33 years

7. The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary

8. The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary • Officer Henry Berryhill Jr. discovered the break-in during a routine patrol • He asked the man hanging around the front of the building if he knew anything about it • Henry Cook said he had seen Gideon leaving the building • The deputy found Gideon at a bar later that morning and arrested him • Gideon claimed he was innocent

9. The Bay Harbor Poolroom Burglary Trial Held on August 4th, 1961 in the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida When the judge asked if Gideon was ready for trial, he responded that he wasn’t and that he requested the court to appoint him counsel to represent him The judge said that under Florida law, he couldn’t appoint a lawyer to Gideon unless he was charged of murder of a capital offense, both which threatened the death penalty

10. Previous Rulings Supreme Court, 1932: States had to provide lawyers to poor people charged with serious crimes or murder Supreme Court, 1938: Poor defendants, reguardless of the seriousness of the crimes they were being charged, were entitled to lawyers in federal trials The Problem? Gideon was being tried for a minor offense in a state court

11. The Trial Gideon Assistant State Attourney William E. Harris Presented the case against Gideon very well, knowing legal tactics and all • Had no lawyer, so had to provide all of the jobs that a lawyer would normally do, and most likely do better • He didn’t realize that he could dismiss jurors so he didn’t • His cross-examinations of witnesses had many flaws that a lawyers wouldn’t have had

12. He was convicted of a maximum sentence of 5 years in the state prison in Raiford

13. Life in Prison • While in prison, Gideon was petitioning the Florida Supreme Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to determine if he was being held illegally • When the Florida Supreme Court received this petition, they declined hearing Gideon’s case • There was no reason, it was just denied • He only had one way out: The US Supreme Court

14. Supreme Court • Gideon’s first attempt to contact the Supreme Court failed • Fourty copies of the petition must be sent and all supporting documents must be typed. Also there was a $100 fee for a petition. Some poor applicants could provide a document saying that they couldn’t pay the fee • Gideon forgot to mail this along with the rest

15. Attempt Number 2 • Gideon tried again, this time being successful • His letter included: • The notarized affidavit • Copy of appeal to The Florida Supreme Court • The court’s reply • His main petition, a “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Directed to the Supreme Court of Florida” • An order that the certified records of the last court to hear the case be forwarded to the court of appeals

16. Gideon’s Letter and Petition It was handwritten and full of incorrect grammar and spelling Its intent was clear He claimed his rights under the 14th Amendment had been violated The 14th Amendment states that the government will not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” Gideon believed that due process included the right to be represented by a lawyer

17. Gideon’s Defense The Case Commenses The Court appointed a lawyer to Gideon, and this lawyer was very well known: Abe Fortas He had already represented many people before the Supreme Court He felt like if he had a good argument, the court was looking to overrule the Betts case

18. The Legal Question: • Did the state court’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to fair trial and due process as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? • 6th Amendment: The rights set forth in criminal prosecutions. For example, right to a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury… • 14th Amendment: Prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps to ensure fairness.

19. The Decision • March 18, 1963 • After deliberating Gideon’s case for two months, the Supreme Court announced, in a unanimous vote, that Betts should be overturned • Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion • It spoke of the controversy since Betts was decided • He noted the similarities between Betts and Gideon’s cases • It overruled Betts case

20. Interest Groups Support the Decision Oppose the Decision It would be harder to sentence someone and possibly would create cases that are disputed • Because the American people are getting more freedoms and liberties so that the individuals themselves are protected • Ex. American Civil Liberties Union

21. The Precedent This Case Set: Now in ANY case in ANY court you are guaranteed an attorney, no matter the circumstances The right to an attorney is also one of the rights you must be informed of based from the case Miranda v. Arizona

22. Personal Judgement I believe that the Supreme Court got this one right. If a person cannot afford an attorney that shouldn’t mean that they don’t get one. If it is a common citizen verses a lawyer in an oral argument, chances are that the lawyer is going to win, knowing legal tactics and all. This would mean that anyone too poor to afford an attorney would basically be convicted. That is not a fair trial, something guaranteed to us in the Constitution