GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT

'''Gideon v. Wainwright''', , is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution to provide lawyers in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.

Contents

Background

Decision

Aftermath

Impact on courts

Public defender system

Right to counsel

Modern reform efforts

References

See also

Background

The Supreme Court ruled in ''Powell v. Alabama,'' , the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the right to counsel was essential to the safeguarding of American freedoms, but left it up to the states just how far this right extended. In ''Betts v. Brady,'' , the Court modified this doctrine slightly, ruling that whether or not a lawyer was required would depend on the circumstances of each case. Specifically, the Court focused on a case-by-case determination of whether the lack of representation affected a denial of due process, rendering the trial unfair. Over the next twenty years, the Court heard several more cases, and in all of them ruled that in fact a lawyer was required. Due to the difficulty of proving the high standard of a due process violation, nearly all such cases involved the death penalty. This view hadn't changed by the early 1960s.
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon had been charged with burglary for breaking into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida and taking beer, wine, and change from the vending machines. He appeared in court too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place:
:The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
:GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.
Gideon had been forced therefore to act as his own counsel, and conducted a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary.
From his prison cell, making use of the prison library, and writing in pencil on prison stationary, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. His argument was that he had been denied counsel and therefore his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated without due process of law.
The court assigned him a prominent Washington, D.C., attorney, Abe Fortas (later a Supreme Court justice from 1965–1969) of the law firm Arnold & Porter.

Decision

The decision was announced on 18 March 1963; the opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Hugo Black.
In it, the court specifically praised its previous ruling in ''Powell v. Alabama'', and overruled ''Betts v. Brady,'' which allowed selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states, itself previously binding only in federal cases. Instead, the court held that the right to the assistance of counsel was a fundamental right, essential for a fair trial, thereby emphasizing the procedural safeguards which were needed for due process of law. In this sense, the court ruled specifically that no one, regardless of wealth, education or class, should be charged with a crime and then be forced to face his accusers in court without the guidance of counsel. All of the other justices concurred in the judgment.
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for "further action not inconsistent with this decision." Gideon was then retried: represented by W. Fred Turner, his appointed counsel in this second trial, he was acquitted.
''Gideon v. Wainwright'' was one of a series of Supreme Court decisions which confirmed the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to counsel during trial, on appeal, and in the subsequent cases of ''Massiah v. United States'' and ''Miranda v. Arizona'' , even during police interrogation.

Aftermath

Impact on courts

At the time, this was one of select few that directly overturned a previous Supreme Court decision. Up until ''Gideon'' there had been fewer than 100 case decisions that had later been turned over by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases. The former arrangement of upholding the “fair trial” system, where the state was given a fair amount of latitude in criminal proceedings as long as there were no “shocking departures from fair procedure” was quickly being discarded in favor of a firm set of “…procedural guarantees…” stemming from previous constitutional amendments. ^[1] As a result, when ''Gideon'' came before the court they decided to reverse ''Betts'' and took upon a system of rules that did not require a case-by-case analysis, but instead created the necessary procedure by its very nature.^[2] In this way, the case helped to refine ''stare decisis'': when it should be upheld and what standard should case decisions be tested against precedent to achieve a legitimate practicability in the eyes of the Supreme Court and lower courts.^[3] This confusion resulted in several new methods practiced by the Supreme Court when overturning a previous ruling to maintain the “…impersonal qualities of the judicial process…” and keep the sense that legal system is without feeling or prejudice and simply applies justice to those who come before it.^[4]

Public defender system

Many entation of indigent defendants since the Gideon ruling was handed down in 1963. The decision in Gideon created and expanded public defenders. Immediately following the decision, Florida required that public defenders must work in all sixteen of the states circuit courts.^[5] The need for more public defenders also led to a need to ensure that the defenders are properly trained in legal defense to allow defendants to receive as fair of a case as possible. Several states and counties followed suit. Washington D.C., for instance, is one such city that has created a training program for their public defenders. Public defenders in District of Columbia must receive rigorous training before they are allowed to represent defendants and they must continue their training in order to remain current and up-to-date.Abel, Laura. “2006 Edward v. Sparer Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright.” ''Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review'', Volume 15. Summer 2006. Another program in the Bronx in New York City requires public defenders to undergo training and provides defendants with “holistic training.” Recently the American Bar Association, the National League Aid, and Defender Association set minimum training requirements, caseload levels, and experience requirements for its lawyers.

Right to counsel

Among the States, the ''Doughty v. Maxwell'' decision demonstrates the differences between how state and federal governments address the waiver standards of the right to counsel. In this case the Supreme court granted certiorari and reversed the decision in ''Doughty v. Sacks'', which held that regardless of ''Gideon'', the defendant waives his or her right to counsel by entering a plea of guilty. ''Doughty'' took place in Ohio, which had its own way of interpreting the right to counsel as many states do including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Florida. Pennsylvania and West Virginia also deemed that the right to counsel was waived when a plea of guilty was entered. In Florida, at least before ''Gideon'', the defendant had to request the right to counsel otherwise it was automatically waived. This varies a great deal with federal law which has strict guidelines for waiving the right to counsel. Under federal law, the defendant can only waive his or her right to trial if it is clear that the defendant understands the "charges, the consequences of the various pleas, and the availability of counsel."^[6]

Modern reform efforts

There are modern reform efforts that are aiming to expand the ''Gideon'' decision to include cases regarding human rights. In August 2006, the American Bar Association urged states to provide a lawyer for low-income people in categories of civil proceeding involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health, or childcare.Dana Jr., Howard H. “2006 Edward v. Sparer Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: Introduction: ABA 2006 Resolution on Civil Right to Counsel.” ''Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review'', Volume 15. Summer 2006. The President of the American Bar Association stated that in regards to civil matters “poor litigants have basic human needs which deserve as much attention as the interest in liberty found to be the basic of criminal right to counsel in Gideon.” The decision of how this will proceed is not yet finalized, but it is proposed that each state will have a say in which rights should be recognized by legislation.

References

1. Beaney, William. "The Right to Counsel: Past, Present, and Future", ''Virginia Law Review'', 1963, p. 1153.
2. Beaney, p. 1153.
3. Israel, Jerold H. "The “Art” of Overruling", ''The Supreme Court Review'', 1963, p. 218.
4. Israel, p. 219.
5. “Gideon’s Promise, Still Unkept.” ''The New York Times'', 18 March 1993: A22.
6. "Waiver of the Right to Counsel in State Court Cases: The Effect of Gideon v. Wainwright." ''The University of Chicago Law Review''.


★ "Gideon’s Promise Unfulfilled: The Need for Litigated Reform of Indigent Defense." ''Harvard Law Review''. Vol. 113, pp. 2062-2079.

★ Uelmen, Gerald F. "A Train Ride: A Guided Tour of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel." ''Law and Contemporary Problems'', Vol. 58, 2001, pp. 13-29.

★ Van Alstyne, William W. "In Gideon’s Wake: Harsher Penalties and the “Successful” Criminal Appellant." ''The Yale Law Journal'', Vol. 74, pp. 606-639.

See also

Gideon's Trumpet