Gideon v. Wainwright Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Gideon v. Wainwright - Case Study Example In Betts v. Brandy, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the court modified this doctrine slightly, ruling, â€Å"that whether or not a lawyer was required would depend on the circumstances of whether a lack of representation affected a denial of due process, rendering the trial unfair. Due to the difficulty of proving the high standard of a due process violation, nearly all such cases involved the death penalty. This view had not changed by the late 1960’s. Today when an individual is apprehended by the police, he is informed of his constitutional rights; through being Mirandized, wherein he is informed that he is entitled to have representation and that if he can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him. In 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon had been charged with burglary for breaking into a pool hall in Panama City Bay County, Florida and taking money from the vending machines. He appeared in court too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place: The Court: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I can not 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 the person is charged with a 2 capital offence. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint counsel to defend you in this case.... penitentiary. From his prison cell and making ample use of the prison library, Gideon appealed to the United States Supreme Court based on the fact that he had been denied counsel and therefore his fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated without due process of law. Mr. Gideon brought habeas corpus proceedings against the Director of the Division of Corrections. The Florida Supreme Court, 135 So 2 d 746, denied all relief, and Mr. Gideon brought certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review judgment of the Florida Supreme Court denying habeas corpus on the ground that indigent defendant in criminal prosecution in state court has no right to have counsel appointed for him (372 U.S. 335) Mr. Justice Black held that the sixth Amendment to the federal constitution providing that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance of counsel for his defense is made obligatory on the states by the3 fourteenth amendment, and that an indigent defendant in a criminal prosecution in a state court has the right to have counsel appointed too him. Like Gideon, Betts sought release be habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violation of the fourteenth amendment, Betts was denied any relief, and on review this court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment,