Gideon Vs Wainwright

To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

Background

To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

Between midnight and 8:00 AM on June 3 1961 a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room. A door was broken, a cigarette machine was broken as well as a record player, money was also stolen from the register. Later that day a witness said that they saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at 5AM leaving with a wine bottle and money in his pockets. Based on this he was arrested and charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny.

While in jail Gideon wrote a letter to the Supreme Court. Gideon lacked funds therefore wasn’t able to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. He then requested a lawyer which was then denied but the the court. They stated that such it was only obligated to appoint a an attorney to indigent defendants in capital cases. He was then obligated to represent his self in the trial which led to him being found guilty by the jury and was then sentenced to 5 years in state prison.

The court held that Gideon had the right to be represented by a court appointed attorney. Justice Black called it an obvious truth. They overruled its decision on Betts v Brady where it was decided that the sixth amendment guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right during a fair trial.

To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

“ ...that the Constitution makes no distinction between capital and noncapital cases. The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process of law for the deprival of "liberty" just as for deprival of "life," and there cannot constitutionally be a difference in the quality of the process based merely upon a supposed difference in the sanction involved. How can the Fourteenth Amendment tolerate a procedure which it condemns in capital cases on the ground that deprival of liberty may be less onerous than deprival of life—a value judgment not universally accepted or that only the latter deprival is irrevocable? I can find no acceptable rationalization for such a result, and I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court. “

Justice Black

Majority Decision

ConcurringOpinions