Gideon V. Wainwright Case Summary

Words: 364
Pages: 2

Gideon, when charged with breaking and entering and having the intention of committing a misdemeanor, requested a lawyer from the court for defense.
He was told that counsel is only appointed in capital cases when the defendant is poor and cannot afford defense.
Gideon represented himself in court and was sentenced to five years.
He filed for writ of habeas corpus under the Florida Supreme Court because he saw his conviction as unconstitutional and was denied
He filed once again under the US Supreme Court and was reviewed.

Issue: “Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? (legal counsel)”

Decision of the Court "Holding": With a unanimous, 9-0 rule for Gideon, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts must provide attorneys for criminal defendants who are unable to afford defense lawyers.

Reasoning: The right of the accused to have a proper and fair trial was vital in the eyes of the Framers. The Sixth Amendment states that counsel should be available and/or provided to the defendant in all criminal prosecutions. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment has been applied to the states. The Florida law that prevented Gideon from obtaining counsel is therefore unconstitutional. Taking into account another aspect of the Sixth Amendment, a trial cannot
…show more content…
Wainwright established protections for individuals against the justice system, which is a presumptive system that is convinced of guilt before the conviction. The right to counsel can prevent this outlook from creating unjust trials. If poor people couldn’t receive counsel, the justice system would be balanced unfairly against them. Today, there are thousands of cases taken on by public defenders. Had this case not overruled the previous SCOTUS decision that only in capital cases would public defenders be assigned, many more people would be in prison, and an unfair percentage would be