Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Study

In the groundbreaking case Gideon vs. Wainwright we are given a prime example of a Supreme Court case and its impact on federalism. Gideon was accused of felony burglary charges after an eyewitness placed him at the scene of a robbery. Although there was no evidence of him committing the crime, police arrested him and charged him with the theft based solely on an eye witness report. The sequences of events that would follow would change the way states were ordered to provide due process and create a fair and balanced trial for all felony trials.
Prior to Gideon, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 6th and14th Amendments did not require the appointment of counsel in every criminal case, but counsel should be appointed for an indigent defendant whenever a special circumstance was present that would make it difficult for that person to receive a fair trial without the assistance of counsel.” (Jacob 11; Vol. 87). Most defendants were only appointed an attorney for major crimes they committed such as murder. People who were uneducated, minorities and disabled fell into the category as those with special circumstances. Those particular cases that were brought to the Supreme Court actually had their court decisions overturned if they had been denied legal
counsel, but that did not change the fact that if they were not included in such “special circumstances” the 6th and 14th Amendments held in place that these citizens have a right to a fair and speedy trial with due process. There was a previous case entitled Betts V. Brady in which legal counsel was denied to Betts when prosecuted by the state. The court ruled against Betts citing that he didn’t have to be provided legal counsel. This was ironic because Betts was also indicted on robbery charges, had no special circumstances and was forced to represent himself just as Gideon was.
Gideon was around 50 years old and already had a criminal history when he was arrested in June of 1961. “Bay Harbor Pool Room, a few miles east of downtown Panama City, Florida” (11; Vol. 87) was the location of the robbery and Gideon lived conveniently right across the street. “At his trial, Gideon, representing himself, cross examined the witnesses for the prosecution. He decided not to take the witness stand on his own behalf. He was convicted and given a five-year sentence, based on the fact that he previously had been convicted of state and federal felonies.” (11 Vol. 87). Gideon had requested an attorney be appointed to him since he was poverty stricken but the state did not appoint him one. “In the colloquy with Judge McCrary, Gideon seemed certain that he was entitled to counsel. However, he was wrong. Brady governed in state courts; there was no automatic right to counsel for an indigent defendant in a state non-capital criminal case.” (Jacob 2067; Vol. 99.5) Despite his conviction Gideon did not give up. “Gideon then filed a petition for writ certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and the petition was granted.” (2059; Vol. 99.5) This would be the beginning of a landmark decision and would argue the decision of Betts V. Brady forcing it into reconsideration.
Gideon’s second trial offered new opportunities and Gideon decided to testify this time. The witness that put him behind bars in the first place was impeached and discredited, thus compromising major testimony in the State’s case. New information was also brought forth the second time around. “Officer Duell Pitts testified that not only were beer and wine drunk or taken during the break in, but twelve bottles of “Cokes” also went missing.”(Abel 289). This new evidence gave Gideon a break in his case. “To the jury it would have seemed unlikely that a fifty year old unemployed drifter and alcoholic like Gideon would have wanted Cokes.” (2059; Vol. 99.5) Gideon was acquitted, overturning the previous ruling on Betts V. Brady. Gideon’s case impacted Federalism because the States ultimately had to provide free legal counsel to all indigent defendants.
The Supreme Court decided that having counsel is necessary to receive a fair trial. “Gideon transformed criminal prosecutions and generated significant funding for indigent defense nationally.” (273; WEB) Such funding provides all indigents with a defense attorney at the State level regardless of any special circumstances or the severity of the crime. Gideon’s case changed the way the 6th and 14th Amendments were interpreted thus the Federal powers forced the States to recognize this need for all defendants regardless of their incomes to receive a fair trial by way of free legal
counsel.
The National Center for State Courts offers a resource guide for Indigent Defense. Although some still argue that due to the overwhelming amount of cases, defendants are represented by undertrained and unprepared lawyers, who cannot provide a fair case with their services, others may say at least they have representation. Despite the remarks from critics, the case Gideon V. Wainwright broke traditional findings and offered a fresh perspective on the right to legal counsel. “no matter how poor or downtrodden a person is, our system of justice guarantees him fair treatment, including a constitutional right to counsel.” (2101; Vol. 99.5). Many people like to use the term living constitution; this signifies that our constitution is fluid and always changing. Cases like Gideon V. Wainwright are an example of this. Cases head to the Supreme Court all the time and while many are denied, others challenge our perceptions and interpretations of how our Constitutions and Amendments will affect our Laws. Federal Government is always sharing its power with the States in an attempt to provide fair and balanced judgement and Gideon’s case demonstrates this.