The framers formed this country with one sole document, the Constitution, whichthey wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This bountiful wisdom arose from the unjusttreatment of King George to which the colonists were subject. Among these violations ofthe colonists’ rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of justice.
As a result, afair trial of the accused was a right given to the citizens along with other equities that theframers instilled in every other facet of this countrys government. These assurances ofthe citizens rights stated in the bill of rights. In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, In all criminal prosecutions, theaccused shall enjoy the right. .
. to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. A firstreading of this phrase one might be think that this right, that which gives a personaccused of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being that it isamong the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the public. However, the simplemanner in which this amendment is phrased creates a gray area, and subject tointerpretation under different circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legaldefense is further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, No State shallmake or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the UnitedStates.
As a result, many questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true rightof the accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided by thegovernment if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel for his defense? Or, onthe other hand, does this amendment set the responsibility of assembling a defensivecounsel 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 rightof the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does theFourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering thesequestions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In June of 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon, a fifty year old petty thief, drifter, andgambler who had spent much of his life in and out of jail was arrested in Panama CityFlorida. He was charged with breaking into a poolroom one night in an effort to stealbeer, Coke, and coins from a cigarette machine (Goodman 62). From the outset, Gideon insisted that he was innocent.
His trial commenced in aFlorida courtroom in August of that year. Gideon informed the Judge that he was notprepared for the trial to begin because he had not assembled a legal counsel in hisdefense. He then requested that the court appoint counsel to represent him (Goodman62). The Judge responded with the following statement: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense.
I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case (372 U. S. 335)The trial continued, and Gideon directed his defense; but his efforts were futile as onecould expect from a common man with no legal education or experience. The juryconvicted him of the felonious charges and gave Gideon the maximum five year sentence(Goodman 62). At the time of Gideons trial in the Florida court the right to legal counselensured by the Sixth Amendment was only applicable to federal cases, and states had theright to handle the matter of the appointment of legal counsel to the defense in state casesat their discretion (Asch, 135). This practice was an effect of the outcome of the UnitedStates Supreme Court case of Betts v.
Brady decided in 1942. In this case, anunemployed farm worker in Maryland named Smith Betts was charged with robberyrequested that the court appoint counsel to his defense. The judge denied this request onthe grounds that in that county it was not practice in that county for the court to appointcounsel to poor defendants only in capital cases. Like Gideon, Betts conducted his owndefense and was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. Betts sent an appeal tothe Supreme Court, but the Court ruled against Betts because, the courts opinion was inthe great majority of states, it has been the considered judgment of the people, theirrepresentatives, and their courts that the appointment of counsel is not a fundamentalright, essential to a fair trial (Goodman 64). With the precedent set by the ruling of Brady v.
Betts, the denial of theappointment of counsel by the trial court in the Gideon case was issued with just reason. Even though many states and the federal government allowed for the appointment ofcounsel for impoverished defendants, Florida as well as many other southern states didnot (Goodman 62). The only instance in which Counsel could be appointed to defendantsunder Florida law was in capital cases, and thus the reason for the denial of Gideonsrequest for Counsel (Asch 135). In pursuit of an appeal, Gideon studied law books while serving out his sentencein state prison.
Gideon filed a petition for habeus corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. This petition sought to invalidate his conviction and sentence on the basis that the trialcourts refusal to appoint counsel denied him of rights enumerated in the Constitution ofthe United States and the federal government. Upon consideration of the Florida SupremeCourt, but without an opinion, Gideons petition for habeus corpus was denied (372 U. S. 335). After the Florida Supreme Court ruled against Gideons petition for habeuscorpus, Gideon appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court in forma pauperis,which means that if the case is approved to be considered the government would providea lawyer and all other expenses for the consideration of his case in the Supreme Court(Wilson 431).
The Supreme court selected the case to be considered. Gideon presented his case before the Supreme court in January 1963. The basis ofthe argument was that it was unconstitutional for the states to create their own statelegislation which decides the circumstances under which the court appoints counsel tothe defense, and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Gideon arguedthat these pieces of state legislation are unlawful on the ground that they abridge the rightto have the assistance of counsel for defense that is given by the Sixth Amendment.
Thisargument was strongly supported by the Fourteenth Amendment which states No Stateshall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities ofcitizens of the United States. . . These arguments were considered before the court in anattempt to earn an appeal, a new fair trial for Gideon (372 U. S.
335). The Supreme Courts decision was made in March. All nine justices concluded toreverse Gideons conviction on the basis that he was denied due process by reason of thedenial of the appointment of legal counsel to his defense (372 U. S. 335). The unanimousdecision was delivered by Justice Black, who wrote:”.
. . In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hailed into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime.
Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the publics interest in an orderly society. Similarly there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defense. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.
From the beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural andsubstantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartialtribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him” (372 U. S. 335).
This decision meant that Gideon received a new trial. A trial in which he had equitablerepresentation by a competent lawyer. In Gideons retrial, his court appointed attorneyfulfilled his duties with such excellence that Gideon was acquitted. This decision had many profound implications.
For starters, all hundreds of otherprisoners who had been convicted without benefit of defense counsel won their releaseFlorida jails, as well as the jails of other states (Goodman 66). This may be disconcertingbecause some of these prisoners may have been guilty of their crimes or hardened byprison, and these prisoners are being casually released into society. The State of Floridashould have retried these prisoners instead of releasing them. However, the retrialprocess brings up another question – If a prisoner had a trial but was denied legal counsel,does it violate the section of the Fifth Amendment, which states that, Nor shall anyperson be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. TheFifth Amendment guarantees the right of a person who is acquitted to not be tried againfor the same crime. Since the prosecutor cannot appeal like a convict can, or try theseprisoners again in a new equitable and legitimate trial, does it mean that these freedprisoners will not be retried?That is not all the decision accomplished, however.
The most importantimplication set fort in this trial is the further proof of the legitimacy of the dominance ofthe federal government over the states. The power of the Federal government has grownsince the Civil War, in which legitimacy of the federal government was firmlyestablished. The southern states felt that the true power was invested in the state, and thattheir secession was justified. After the defeat of these secessionist states, the legitimacyof the Federal government was established, and has grown since that time.
The marker ofthis is the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the states from enacting and enforcingany law which abridges the rights of the citizens set forth by the Bill of Rights. Thistheme fits the Gideon case because the ruling meant that the states must give the SixthAmendment guarantee to the defendant who is accused of violating a state law. Thismeans that the state no longer has the power of discretion in the execution of its ownlaws. However, in this case, the dominance of the federal government is all necessary andproper in order to create unity in the ensure that the rights of the citizens set forth by theconstitution are not infringed by the state. Works CitedGoodman, Elaine and Walter. The Rights of the People.
Toronto: Doubleday, 1971. Asch, Sindey H. Civil Rights and Responsibilites under the Constitution. New York:Arco Publishing Company, 1968.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). Wilson, James, and John J.
DiIulio, Jr. American Government, institutions and Policies. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1995. Justice Under Law: the Gideon Case.
Videocassette. Encyclopedia Britanica EducationalCorporation, 1967. Barker, Lucius, and Twiley Barker, Jr. Civil Liberties and the Constitution. New Jersey:Prentince Hall, 1990.
