gideon v wainright :: essays research papers

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT_______________________________________________372 U.S. 335 (1975)FACTS Gideon, the beger, was charged in a Florida State solicit for breaking and entering into a poolroom with the intent to get out a misdemeanor. This is a felony under Florida State Law. Due to lack of funds, he asked the address to appoint counsel for him and was denied. The move earthd that under Florida state law, counsel could only be appointed to represent a defendant when that person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon unsuccessfully represented himself at trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. Gideon then filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition (A judicial mandate ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is confine unlawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. The petition is brought by a person who objects to his own or anothers grip or imprisonment). He alleged that the courts refusal to appoint counsel for him violated his effective to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. In Federal Court, counsel moldiness be appointed to an indigent defendant unless otherwise waived. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief. The United States Supreme Court (USSC) granted certiorari, which gives them the authority to review the case. The court relies on the decision in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455. Betts was indicted for robbery in a medico State Court. He asked the court to appoint counsel for him and was denied. He was imbed guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to eight years in prison. The court in Betts held that the Sixth Amendment was not a fundamental serious and therefore was not applicable in State Courts under the ordinal Amendment. ISSUE Whether right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is applicable in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether the right to counsel is considered to be a fundamental right and essential to a fair trial. safekeeping Here, the USSC overturned the decision in Betts v. Brady and held that appointment of counsel to defendants in all criminal prosecutions in federal court, may besides be applied to defendants in state court under the Fourteenth Amendment. REASONING Many prior USSC decisions have held that care of counsel is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment and is deemed necessary to ensure fundamental rights of look and liberty.