Henry Brunisholz
Mrs. Phelps
Mock Trial/ 4(A)
March 23, 2017
A Case Study of Gideon v. Wainwright
The Facts: The year is 1961 in Panama City, Florida. A thief by the name of Clarence Earl Gideon has broken into a poolroom and is stealing a pint of wine and a bit of small coinage. He was arrested before he stole anything, the crime was left unfinished. As a poor man, Clarence implored his judge to appoint him a lawyer as he couldn’t afford the services of one himself. Sadly, under Florida’s law of the time, the judge was obliged to refuse the poor man’s request since Clarence’s crime was not a capital offense.
A capital offense is of course a crime in which death is a possible penalty. Second degree petty theft or petty theft is classified
…show more content…
The first of these was Powell v. Alabama (1932). Powell v. Alabama was a rape case where 9 African American males, were tried and convicted of raping 2 caucasian females. These poor lads were only given counsel to represent them in court, counsel that did not talk to their clients or even understand why they were there. The court in Powell v. Alabama was then asked a very important question whose answer we can see affecting how people were to be represented in court to this day. That question was whether the trials violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The due process clause states that all states must obey all laws to provide a fair proceeding. In this case, the jury decided that due process was not followed because the defendant's counsel was not given time to even talk to their clients. From that point on legal counsel was to be provided to defendants in capital cases. This of course was very important to Gideon v. Wainwright because it laid the foundation that defendants are required to have a counsel for their defense.
Another case’s verdict also provided the foundation on which Gideon v. Wainwright built on. This case was Betts v. Brady. Betts was arrested for theft. He was unable to hire a counsel for his defense and subsequently plead not guilty while claiming he had a right to
…show more content…
The Court believed Clarence Earl Gideon was unable to present his defense because he was not trained as legal counsel and therefore did not posses the necessary skills to act as a criminal defense attorney.
Did the Court rule that a defendant could never act as his or her own lawyer?
The Court did not rule that a defendant could not act as their own legal counsel to present their defense. The Court merely ruled that if a defendant can not afford legal counsel to present their defense and is either unwilling or unable to represent themselves in court, the state is legally obliged to provide legal counsel if so requested by the defendant, but only if requested.
In overturning its Betts v. Brady ruling what did the Court say in effect about its current judgement in that case?
In overturning the decision made in Betts v. Brady the Court made a very important and strong statement that took a step in the direction of a fair democracy. This decision was as follows, in Betts v. Brady the Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th amendment was fulfilled, even if the defendant(s) are not provided legal counsel to present their
The impact that this case had on the Constitution and Amendments was that of determining if this officer had done a search beyond the demands of the original search, and if he had violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.
middle of paper ... ... Works Cited "Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155).". legal information institute, LII. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web.
The case of Ford V. Wainwright is a Supreme court case of the United Stated argued in 1986. Alvin Bernard Ford is the plaintiff in this case, In 1974 he was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. In 1982 Ford began to show signs of a serious mental disorder. The Governor of Florida then appointed a panel of three psychiatrist to determine if Ford was component to understand the nature of the death penalty and the crime he had committed. All three psychiatrist disagreed on his exact diagnosis but agreed that he was sane and knew the nature of the death penalty. Ford’s attorney unsuccessfully sought a hearing in the state court for determination of his competency and then filed a hebeas corpus petition, which is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court especially for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty. The Florida courts denied his petition and signed a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford then sued Louie L. Wainwright, the defendant, who at the time of the case was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Correction.
In Gideon's Trumpet Anthony Lewis documents Clarence Earl Gideon's struggle for a lawyer, during an era where it was not necessary in the due process to appoint an attorney to those convicted.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961 and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit theft, by taking money out of vending machines. What he did at the time was considered a felony. When it came time to have the trial he did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to defend him. The judge denied the request saying that under Florida state law counsel can be appointed only in a capital offense. Since Gideon didn’t have a lawyer and was not educated to defend himself he lost easily to the prosecution. Gideon was then sentenced to five years in prison. He then filed out a writ of certiorari, which is a petition of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for them to review his case. The Court granted Gideon's request and appointed Abe Fortas to represent him as his lawyer.
When working with a court appointed lawyer you need to research and follow up on guidelines that carry with your charge. You have to learn how the court system works. Lawyers that are hired by the court to represent the low and middle-income people are lazy in doing their job. There are many reasons why court appointed lawyers don't do their best for their clients involving the court cases.
The Supreme Court, Strickland case set the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): the defendant David Washington had pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced to death. During the sentencing process Washington lawyer did not seek any character witnesses and did not request any psychiatric evaluation for his client. Due to this defendant decided to appeal his sentence on the basis of inadequate representation of his attorney a violation of ...
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
The framers formed this country with one sole document, the Constitution, which they wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This bountiful wisdom arose from the unjust treatment of King George to which the colonists were subject. Among these violations of the colonists' rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of justice. As a result, a fair trial of the accused was a right given to the citizens along with other equities that the framers instilled in every other facet of this country's government. These assurances of the citizens' rights stated in the bill of rights. In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." A first reading of this phrase one might be think that this right, that which gives a person accused of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being that it is among the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the public. However, the simple manner in which this amendment is phrased creates a "gray area", and subject to interpretation under different circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legal defense is further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As a result, many questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true right of the accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided by the government if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel for his defense? Or, on the other hand, does this amendment set the responsibility of assembling a defensive counsel on the accused even if he or she lacks the funds to do so? Also, do the states have the right to make their own legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
Miranda and his lawyers argued that his fifth and sixth amendment was violated. Within the fifth and sixth amendment they argued that Miranda testified against himself and also that he asked for a lawyer. In a pace law review they state that “The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his right against self-incrimination nor