Gideon V. Wainwright Case Summary

Defendant was charged in Florida State Court. The petitioner, Gideon, was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. Following his imprisonment, he applied for a write of habeas corpus from the State Supreme Court, stating that his conviction violets his guaranteed rights by the constitution and the Bill of Rights. The State Supreme Court later denied him all relief. Subsequently, Gideon was then granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court, and preceded in forma pauperis. The appellant and petitioner of the case is Gideon, while the respondent of the case, Wainwright, is the appellee.

Most Important Facts:
Gideon, the defendant, was convicted and charged with a felony for breaking into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Gideon was unable to afford proper counsel and the State Court of Florida denied appointing him council due to his crime not being a …show more content…
Wainwright to argue the legality of not granting a defendant proper council. These cases look into the 14th and 6th amendment. The Powell v. Alabama (1932) was a case where upholding the right to a council represented a fair trial. Four years later, Grosjean v. American Press Co (1936) concluded that, “[The assistance of counsel] is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty.” (p.3). While, on the other hand, Betts v. Brady (1942) argued this fact and claimed that the 6th amendments guarantee of counsel is not a fundamental right too a indigent defendant. This was a major case in determining the outcome of this case. Then, Three years prior to this case, Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton (1960) “rejected any constitutional distinction between capital and noncapital offenses,” in regards to civilian dependent of armed forces personnel. This is a major case, as the reason for Gideon not initially receiving council has to do with his case being

Show More