Skip to content

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

March 19, 2012

On March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel was a fundamental right that applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.  “That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963)

In overturning Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, the Court ruled   “…[W]e but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”  372 U.S. 335, 343 (1963).

Gideon, indigent and charged with burglary, a felony under Florida law, requested that an attorney be appointed to defend him.  After his request was denied, Gideon represented himself but was convicted.  Florida law at the time limited appointment to capital cases only.  Gideon filed a writ of habeas corpus with the state supreme court, which was denied; he then filed with the Supreme Court.  The Court appointed Abe Fortas as counsel to represent him on the appeal. 

Gideon wrote all of his court documents in pencil on prison stationary.

One Comment leave one →
  1. May 9, 2012 8:01 pm

    This Posting has become very informative regarding a current corruption case where Public defender was appointed but basically they do absolutely nothing for the client. If prodded, they become condescending and ultimately engage in malicious abandonment of Client. This is corruption. results in Ineffective assistance of counsel and thus denial of 6th Amend. right to counsel.
    Ironicallly this article was posted on the same day I filed a motion to adress this corruption and this article has become very informative to enhance my challenge to corruption along with the case Johnson V Zerbst.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: