Gideon V Wainwright Pros And Cons

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

The sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel or his defence.” ("The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.") This amendment means that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to a quick and public trial. The trial of the accused must be held by an unbiased jury in the area where the crime supposedly

The Scottsboro Trials led to two prominent U.S. Supreme Court cases—Powell v. Alabama and Norris v. Alabama. Surprised and Dismayed by the outcome of the first set of trials, the NAACP determined that the rights of the Scottsboro boys had been treaded upon and deserved a need for a re-trial to shed light on the importance of a fair trial. The re trial resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court case Powell v. Alabama. The defense argued that the nine men were denied protection of their fundamental right to having effective legal counsel.The right to having effective council is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The right to due process recognized by the 14th Amendment was also neglected during the Scottsboro Trials . The Court affirmed the concerns of the NAACP and International Labor Defense and reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro boys. The Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama ultimately set forth the beginnings of “incorporation” of the Due Process Clause and the rights to a fair trial to those who face a sentence of death by applying them to State Constitutions under the authority of the

The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

     In JOHNSON v. ZERBST (1928) the court read the 6th Amendment to require the appointment of counsel for all indigent federal criminal defendants.

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Wainwright. In this case, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony; he had broken into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, he requested that one be appointed. However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon had to represent himself in trial, was found guilty, and had to serve five years in prison. Hearing this, however, while he was in prison Gideon filed a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus in on the denial of counsel issue to the Supreme Court of Florida. Following that court’s rejection of the Petition, Gideon took his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated-which they had been. The Sixth Amendment states that the government is to provide lawyers for criminals in court-even the poor accused. Lawyers in criminal cases are necessities, not luxuries. Gideon won his case, and the Supreme Court held that the Framers placed high value on the right of the accused to have a fair trial with the ability to put up a proper defense, and that

The year is 1961, and a man named Clarence Earl Gideon is serving time for petty larceny and has apparently broke into the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida. In court, Gideon appeared without an attorney because he could not afford one. When he asked the judge to appoint him one, the judge denied his request, due to the fact that Florida law permitted counsel only for poor defendants who were charged with capital offenses. Therefore, Gideon represented himself. Despite his own defense and witnesses on his behalf, the jury found him guilty. Gideon felt that he was denied due process of law because he was not assigned an attorney. He felt that the Constitution of the United States assured him of this right. While in jail, Gideon

Wainwright (1963). A burglary took place late one night in Panama City, Florida where a person broke open a business door kicked in a cigarette machine and music player. The burglar also stole money from a cash register and witnesses say they saw a man named Clarence Earl Gideon in the general area of the pool room with money in his pocket and a wine bottle in his hand. Based only on a person’s accusation the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering a private business with intent to commit larceny. Gideon appeared in court without a lawyer because he was not wealthy enough to afford one. The court told Gideon that they could not appoint a counsel to represent him. Under state law in Florida, only defendants charged with capital offenses are eligible to receive an appointed counsel. Gideon argued that the United States Supreme Court states that he is entitled to be represented by counsel. With the court declining Gideon’s request to have an appointed counsel, Gideon was required to represent himself and conduct his own defense. The jury came back with a guilty verdict and Gideon was sentenced to serve 5 years in a state prison. Gideon made use of his time in jail and appealed with an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came back saying that the 6th Amendment to the Constitution does not say that courts can pick and choose who can

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

Interestingly, prior to 1932 the Right to Counsel Clause merely meant that you could hire an outside attorney to represent you in court if you chose and could afford to do so. In Powell v. Alabama, (1932), all that changed when the Supreme Court ruled to establish the right to counsel in capital cases stating that an attorney should be appointed to a defendant who otherwise could not afford one or who is incapable of making their own defense. This ruling however, only applied to Federal government. In 1938 under Johnson v. Zerbst the Supreme Court ruled that defendants have the right to an attorney even if they do not have a clear understanding of that.

The rights to counsel is to increment not impair the indicted. Provision of a lawyer is only justified by a defendant’s consent and is contrary to his basic right to self-representation.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).