Gideon v. Wainwright
372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States are required to provide counsel to indigent defendants in all felony criminal cases.
Facts:
- Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida with the felony of breaking and entering a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor.
- Appearing in court without a lawyer, Gideon informed the judge that he was indigent and requested that the court appoint counsel for him.
- The trial judge denied Gideon's request, stating that under Florida law, counsel could only be appointed for indigent defendants in capital cases.
- Gideon was required to conduct his own defense at trial.
- He made an opening statement, cross-examined the state's witnesses, and presented his own witnesses, but was ultimately found guilty by the jury.
Procedural Posture:
- Gideon was charged with a felony in a Florida state trial court.
- The trial court denied Gideon's request for court-appointed counsel.
- A jury found Gideon guilty, and the court sentenced him to five years in prison.
- Gideon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing his conviction was unconstitutional because he was denied counsel.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon's petition without an opinion.
- Gideon petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel for criminal defendants apply to felony defendants in state courts by way of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and is therefore made obligatory upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court explicitly overrules its prior decision in Betts v. Brady, which held that the right to appointed counsel was not a fundamental right but depended on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court reasons that in an adversarial system of justice, any person who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided. It cites Powell v. Alabama for the principle that the right to be heard would be of little value without the right to be heard by counsel, as even intelligent laypersons lack the necessary skill in law to adequately prepare a defense. The Court concludes that the widespread practice of governments hiring prosecutors and defendants with means hiring defense lawyers indicates a societal belief that lawyers in criminal cases are necessities, not luxuries, for achieving a fair trial.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. While joining the majority opinion, this concurrence emphasizes the long-running debate over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It notes that several justices throughout history have believed the entire Bill of Rights should apply to the states. This opinion also argues against the view that rights applied to the states are 'watered-down versions' of the federal guarantees, asserting that they should have the same force against state invasion as they do against federal action.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. This concurrence agrees with the result, arguing that the Court's decision simply erases a distinction between capital and noncapital offenses that has no basis in logic and has been increasingly eroded by prior Court decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process for the deprivation of 'liberty' just as it does for 'life.' Therefore, there is no acceptable constitutional rationale for requiring counsel in capital cases but denying it in serious noncapital cases where a defendant's liberty is at stake.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. While agreeing that Betts v. Brady should be overruled, this concurrence argues for a 'more respectful burial,' asserting that Betts was not an 'abrupt break' from precedent but an extension of the 'special circumstances' rule from Powell v. Alabama. Over time, however, the special circumstances rule has been steadily eroded to the point that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge is now considered a special circumstance. The rule is no longer a reality and is honored only with 'lip service,' so the time has come to formally abandon it for felony cases. The opinion also cautions that incorporating a right via the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically carry over the entire body of federal law on that right to the states.
Analysis:
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark decision that fundamentally altered the landscape of American criminal procedure by establishing an absolute right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants in state felony cases. By overruling Betts v. Brady's flexible 'special circumstances' test, the Court created a clear, bright-line rule that ensures a more uniform standard of justice across the states. This decision spurred the creation and expansion of public defender systems nationwide, making the promise of a fair trial more accessible to all, regardless of economic status. It represents a major step in the process of 'selective incorporation,' whereby fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
