Gideon v. Wainwright
372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
6th Amendment, 14th Amendment ‘Due Process Clause,’ Federalism, Appellate Jurisdiction, Judicial Review
Case Facts:
One night in 1961 in Panama City, Florida, the Bay Harbor Pool Room was broken into and robbed of some cigarettes, cash from the register, and was left damaged as a result. A lone witness claimed they had seen Clarence Earl Gideon at the premises early that morning. Based on that witness alone, Gideon was arrested for felony breaking and entering and conspiracy to commit petty larceny. Gideon arrived in court without an attorney, as he was too poor to hire one so he asked the court to appoint him one. The Florida Court’s official policy stipulated council could only be provided in capital cases, so he went on to defend himself in court. He lost and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon appealed to the Florida Supreme Court via a writ of habeas corpus, asserting his 14th Amendment right to a fair trial was infringed. The court rejected his appeal. Gideon then appealed to the US Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari.
Questions:
1. Does the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of representation apply to criminal cases where a defendant is being charged with a felony in a state court?
2. Does the right to council also extend via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding:
1. Yes
2. Yes
Legal Reasoning: Justice H.L. Black (7-0)
1. According to Powell v. Alabama (1932), the court ruled that defendants in capital cases who could not afford representation were indeed entitled to it via the 6th Amendment
2. In Betts v. Brady (1942), the court decided that defendants in state courts were not entitled to counsel unless there was some sort of complication, such as the defendant being illiterate, which prevented them from effectively defending themselves
3. Even an intelligent layman lacks the skill and knowledge of law and legal procedures. Therefore, “…without [representation], though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence”
4. Betts is overturned, as the 6th Amendment guarantees defendant’s right to council even if they cannot afford one
5. The 14th Amendment also commands that no life, liberty, or property be depraved without due process of law. Since Gideon’s 6th Amendment rights were infringed, Gideon’s conviction is overturned
Concurrence: Justice T.C. Clark
1. The Constitution does not mention a distinction between capital and non-capital cases. Therefore, the Court should not give any deference to Powell or Betts
2. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between capital and non-capital cases for the deprivation of “life” and “liberty” in the Due Process Clause. Therefore, no special circumstances should be permissible under the 14th Amendment
Concurrence: J.M. Harlan II
1. The presence of any criminal charge is serious enough to warrant the necessity of legal representation.
2. Special circumstances stipulated in Betts violate defendant’s 6th Amendment rights to counsel
Significance:
Gideon effectively overturned Betts as the Court saw the right to council in all criminal cases was guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. Further, special circumstances required by some states for the approval of state provided council was null and void, as the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause enforces the 6th Amendment’s guarantee for all states in all cases. States were now responsible for providing council to all defendants if they could not afford their own
Reflection:
One of the most significant arguments in Gideon was made by Gideon’s appointed attorney, Abe Fortas. Fortas argued that when Clarence Darrow, who was widely regarded as the best criminal defence attorney in the US, was charged with jury tampering, the first thing he did was hire an attorney. Fortas asserted that if a lawyer as bright and successful as Darrow needed an attorney for his own representation, then a man such as Gideon with an eighth grade education, or a man without any education at all, would certainly need a lawyer as well. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas agreed, stating that this argument was one of the best arguments he had seen during his tenure as a Justice. Overall, Gideon broadened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 