GIDEON VS. WAINWRIGHT

GIDEON VS. WAINWRIGHT

 

 

 

Student’s name

Institutional affiliation

Course title

Date of submission

 

 

 

Gideon vs. Wainwright

Introduction

The case found itself to the Supreme Court after Gideon committed breaking into a pool hall. The court denied Gideon the right to access a state law even though he could hire one. Following Florida’s laws, a suspect who has been convicted of a serious offense is the one who is accorded a lawyer, unlike the case of Gideon, which is considered a felony. Witnesses were presented before the court to defend Gideon, and they greatly argued for him being innocent and denied giving testimony by himself. Gideon was later sentenced to a five-year jail term after being convicted by the jury (Cortada, 2020).

To add on, Gideon was not satisfied by the verdict that the court gave. He later appeared before the Florida courts for a writ of habeas, challenging how his case was handled without the StateState giving him counsel. He was convinced that the verdict violated his constitutional rights. In Florida, the Supreme Court declined his petition, causing him to file a further petition to the U.S supreme court in a handwritten form. In the petition, he sought clarification for the proper application of the right of access to a counsel as contained under the sixth amendment of the United States constitution and its space in the State’sState’s legal life (Marcus & Backus, 2020).

The court’s Ruling

The highest court of the land determined that the right to be given legal counsel should apply to the state courts just as it is in the federal courts by the sixth constitutional amendment. Abe Fortas maintained that Gideon was a special case suspect because of having only attained a grade eight education. He further argued that no sufficient argument against a state could be presented by an individual, however competent and well educated they could be. A unanimous ruling was made (9-0) by the judges to vindicate him. The judges who heard his matter were: Earl Warren, who was the chief justice; Hugo Black as the Associate justice; William Douglas, Arthur Goldberg, Tom Clark, Potter Stewart, John Harlan, William Brennan, and Byron White (Moskowitz, 2019)

The court’s reasoning

The Supreme Court judges upheld that the sixth constitutional amendment guaranteed the accused person the right to be represented by a lawyer as a matter of basic right and are therefore applicable to the states as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Due Process Clause. The justice Black insisted that any accused individual who is unable to acquire a lawyer for the reason of poverty has a right to be accorded counsel since there is no surety that they will be shown justice in the absence of a counsel. He further asserted that the idea of fairness before a court could not be achieved if the poor man-Gideon could present himself in defense before the court in the absence of a lawyer. Insisting on the importance of fair trials in the U.S, Justice Black added that lawyers are necessary to the survival of their judicial functions (Moskowitz, 2019).

Justice Black mentioned that the right to be heard lacked meaning if it did not emphasize hearing by a lawyer; That the level of education or competence of an individual does not matter in a court as long as it lacks the science of law. He cannot determine the partiality or impartiality of a court process. He posited that the accused might be tried without sound charges without a lawyer’s help and get convicted based on null or irrelevant evidence. The defendant, Black adds, may have the best of defense arguments but which he may not put forth properly due to lack of legal know-how. Without the support of counsel, the defendant may be pronounced guilty even were not culpable (Marcus, 2015)

In a related case of Powell v. Alabama (1932), where the victims – Scottsboro Boys found guilty of raping two white women were established to be mentally challenged and illiterate, the court gave guidance that the vulnerable nine boys be provided with lawyers to handle their capital crimes. This reference added to the weight of Gideon’s appeal as the court deemed him as an equally special case on the grounds of his education and hence by extension, his literacy levels (Marcus, 2015).

The Supreme Court ruling on the Gideon vs. Wainwright case profoundly affected the preceding related cases in the whole world. It’s important to realize also that this verdict resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of offenders in the U.S who had been convicted and sentenced on grounds similar to this case. The 1972 case of Argersinger v. Hamlin borrowed from this verdict to extend this right to the offender found guilty and deemed fit to serve a prison sentence (Blount, 2015).

The 1966 court case of Miranda v. Arizona saw the application of various rights emanating from the conduct of the previous case of Gideon. Remaining silent upon arrest, choosing to respond to questions or not, and the right to be represented by a lawyer applied in this case.  The right to information on the accused person’s rights also applied in this case. The court’s decision to uphold the rights of a criminal as provided for in the constitution increasingly became a common practice. The case of Griffin v. Illinois in 1956 ruled for a mandatory provision of the transcripts of trial to any accused offender seeking an appeal (Blount, 2015).

Gideon’s case remains a landmark ruling in the development of the constitutional premises in the realms of criminal justice procedures. This Ruling, however, left questions about constitutional jurisprudence. The unanimous decision by the nine-judge bench to consider as violation of fundamental rights, the denial of counsel support for Gideon, basically overruling Betts v. Brady, which placed limitations to the State’sState’s hands of providing a lawyer to an accused person to only ‘’special circumstances’’ in a bid to attain an impartial trial. In the previous years of Betts, the court had determined that a counsel appointment was necessary in all capital cases, with the likelihood of the death penalty adding up to a per se special scenario. In cases of a non-capital felony, like was the case in Gideon’s, the aspect of a special scenario had been manipulated to constitute very regular occurrences to blur the original intention and meaning of special circumstance.

In the cases of non-capital felonies, a council’s appointment was deemed necessary to do the interpretation support to the defendant with low capacity to manipulate the ruling outcome. Hence it’s evident here that the U.S.A’s supreme court, in ruling Gideon’s case, did not consider the aspect of ‘’special circumstance’’ on which the other courts based their Ruling. Therefore, it can be safely argued that Gideon’s case presented a limited significance in doctrine as far as the transformation of the constitutional criminal processes is concerned and instead gained fame based on issues stretched far above the Betts overruling. The definition of a serious criminal charge was in doubt. Justice Black repeatedly brought in the matter of the right to counsel in light of the Sixth Amendment but failed to explain the meaning of ‘’criminal’’ as is used in the realms of criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, considering the jurists’ arguments in support of their Ruling, various matters seem to be of importance.  Being a semi-illiterate, average citizen, Gideon arguably lacked the capacity for self-defense against informed and competent state lawyers and judges without support. The issues of impartiality and justice were at stake as the defendant was vulnerable to intimidations and misinformation arising from the ignorance of his rights and privileges. As such, counsel assistance was needed if impartiality and the rule of law were to have a meaning.

In conclusion, the united states supreme courts” rulings violated the existing laws, and it did not manipulate the justice system of the United States of America’s constitutional laws as it did. Gideon vividly proved that he possessed rights. His rights are found in the sixth amendment, and they included the following; a right to have a firster trial while in public, a right of trial by the jury, the change of the venue, informed consent of the reforms, the right to challenge a witness in front of you. Gideon showed that according to the constitution was not clear if his case was a capital offense or not. This case has vividly portrayed that there are challenges that are part and parcel of the day-to-day activities. The court ruled that Gideon was found to be guilty in the absence of a lawyer.

 

 

References

Blount, S. N. (2015). Finishing What We Started in Gideon v. Wainwright: Expanding the Right to Counsel to Removal Proceedings. Geo. Immigr. LJ, 30, 507.

Cortada, X. (2020). Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963). In Painting Constitutional Law. Brill Nijhoff.

Marcus, P. (2015). The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role with Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases. Minn. L. Rev., 100, 1745.

Marcus, P., & Backus, M. S. (2020). Gideon v. Wainwright: The Surprising Power of a Prisoner Petition. In Painting Constitutional Law (pp. 48-58). Brill Nijhoff.

Moskowitz, D. B. (2019). TRUMPETING CHANGE: GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT 372 US 355, 1963 RIGHT TO COUNSEL. American History, 53(6), 22-24.