Name:____________________
Period:_______
Date:_________________
Rights of the Accused
Landmark Cases
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Background Summary and Questions
Between midnight and 8:00 am on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool
Room in Panama City, Florida. Someone broke a window, smashed the cigarette machine and
jukebox, and stole money from both. Later that day, a witness reported that he had seen
Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning. When Gideon was found
nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets, the police arrested him and charged
him with breaking and entering.
Gideon was a semi-literate drifter who could not afford a lawyer, so at the trial, he asked the
judge to appoint one for him. Gideon argued that the Court should do so because the Sixth
Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge denied his request, ruling that
the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital
crime or "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself.
As might be expected, Gideon did a poor job of defending himself. He had done no preparation
work before his trial; his choice of witnesses was unusual—for instance, he called police officers
who arrested him to testify on his behalf, not having any reason to believe they would help his
case. He had no experience in cross-examining a witness in order to impeach that person's
credibility, so his line of questioning was not as productive as a lawyer's would have been.
Gideon was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which was a felony. He was
sentenced to five years in a Florida state prison, partly because of his prior criminal record. While
in prison, he began studying law in the prison library, believing that his Sixth Amendment rights
had been violated when he was denied a defense lawyer paid for by the State. His study of the
law led him to file a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Florida, which asked
that he be freed because he had been imprisoned illegally. After the Supreme Court of Florida
rejected his petition, he handwrote a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the
United States, asking that it hear his case. The Court allowed him to file it in forma pauperis,
which meant that the Court would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition.
Generally, the Court dismisses most of these petitions; Gideon's was among those that it did not
dismiss.
In state criminal trials, are indigent defendants entitled to a lawyer, even in noncapital cases?
That was the question the Court agreed to decide when they accepted Gideon's petition. It was
not merely a question of whether Gideon had been treated fairly; the Court's ruling would affect
many other people who faced similar circumstances. In a previous decision, Betts v. Brady (1942),
the Court had held that in state criminal trials, an indigent defendant must be supplied with an
attorney only in special circumstances, which included complex charges and incompetence or
illiteracy on the part of the defendant. Since Gideon had not claimed special circumstances, the
Court would have to overturn Betts in order to rule in Gideon's favor. (Florida's state law provided
indigent defendants with lawyers only in capital cases; many other states had laws providing
lawyers to most or all indigent defendants.)
In your groups please answer the following questions:
1. What were the accusations against Clarence Gideon?
2. Did Gideon seem capable of defending himself? How could a lawyer have helped him?
3. What was unusual about the petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United
States?
4. Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
5. Do you think the states should be required to provide defendants like Gideon with a
lawyer? Why or why not?
Name:_______________
Period:___
Date:___________
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The decision was unanimous.
Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady . . . was decided by a divided Court, the problem of a
defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel has been a continuing [sic] source of
controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. To give this problem another review
here, we granted certiorari . . . Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed
counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments
the following: "Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?
....
The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . .
to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." We have construed this to mean that in
federal courts counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right
is competently and intelligently waived. Betts argued that this right is extended to indigent
defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment. In response, the Court stated that,
while the Sixth Amendment laid down "no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs
whether the constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so
fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory
upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." . . . In order to decide whether the Sixth
Amendment's guarantee of counsel is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and
considered "[r]elevant data on the subject.
....
On the basis of this historical data the Court concluded that "appointment of counsel is not a
fundamental right, essential to a fair trial."
....
Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature" and therefore made immune from state
invasion by the Fourteenth . . . are the First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion,
assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances . . . the Fifth Amendment's
command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the
Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth's ban on
cruel and unusual punishment.. . . .
We accept Betts v. Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the
Bill of Rights, which is "fundamental and essential to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the
States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in
concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental
rights. Ten years before Betts v. Brady, this Court . . . had . . . declared that "the right to the aid of
counsel is of this fundamental character." Powell v. Alabama, . . . (1932). While the Court at the
close of its Powell opinion did . . . limit its holding to the particular facts and circumstances of that
case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel are unmistakable.
. . . Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our
adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled 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 . . . spend vast sums of money to . . . try
defendants accused of crime . . . 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 defenses. 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 very
beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural
and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals 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. A defendant's need
for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell
v. Alabama:
"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the
right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and
sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally,
of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the
rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper
charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or
otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his
defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at
every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces
the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence." . . .
The Court in Betts v. Brady departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court's holding in
Powell v. Alabama rested. Florida, supported by two other States, has asked that Betts v. Brady
be left intact. Twenty-two states, as friends of the Court, argue that Betts was "an anachronism
when handed down" and that it should now be overruled. We agree.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further
action not inconsistent with this opinion.
Please answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper:
1. Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
2. Prior to this case, which rights were considered to be "fundamental and essential to a fair
trial" and thus "made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment"? Why do
you think the right to a lawyer was not included in this list?
3. What did the Court say about the right to counsel in the Powell case?
4. When Justice Black says, "Governments, both state and federal . . . spend vast sums of
money to . . . try defendants accused of crime. . . . 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 defenses", what point is he trying to make? Provide an example of a
recent case in which "vast sums of money" were spent. Do you think it made a difference
in the outcome of the case? Explain.
5. Many of the decisions the Supreme Court of the United States makes are based on the
principle of stare decisis, or let the previous decision stand. In the case of Gideon v.
Wainwright, the Court clearly broke with a precedent it had established. Was it justified in
doing so?
Key Terms to Know:
Burden of proof- it is up to the prosecution to prove a
person is guilty. It is not up to the defense to prove that the
person is innocent
Self-incrimination-no one shall be forced to be a witness
against themselves.
Contempt of court- The act of showing disrespect to the
court or disobeying a court order.
Acquitted- found not guilty
Habeas corpus- an order designed to prevent illegal arrests
and imprisonments. It demands that a prisoner be brought
before the court and that the detaining officer show why the
prisoner should not be released.
Certiorari- when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case
from a lower court