Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

- The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of people accused of crimes - Government must pay for a lawyer for defendants who cannot afford one themselves. - 14th Amendment says that states shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - Gideon v. Wainwright is a case about whether or not that right must also be extended to defendants charged with crimes in state courts. - In 1963, the Supreme Court had to decide whether, in criminal cases, the right to counsel paid for by the government was one of those fundamental rights.

1) Gideon was arrested by police after he was found nearby a burglary with a pint of wine and some change 2) Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked the Florida court to appoint one for him, arguing that the Sixth Amendment entitles everyone to a lawyer. 3) Florida state law required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants only in (death penalty) cases. 4) Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that he was improperly imprisoned 5) Florida Supreme Court ruled against him, and SC agreed to hear Gideon's case

Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even in cases in which the death penalty is not at issue?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

1) Nine teenagers were accused of assaulting two women were later found guilty and sentenced to death a week after with no representation 2) SCOTUS ruled that accused persons in a capital case have the right to counsel for their defense 3) Court said that this is one of the fundamental rights that must be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment. 4) State courts must appoint counsel when defendant is incapable of making adequate defense

SCOTUS ruled that 6th Amendment requires that, in federal criminal cases that could be punishable by imprisonment, counsel must be appointed for defendants too poor to hire their own lawyer

SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment did not require states to provide counsel to the poor in non-death-penalty cases.

1) We cannot assure fair trials unless everyone has the assistance of a lawyer. 2) Betts v. Brady should be overturned, because Sixth Amendment nor the 14th amendment does not distinguish between types of criminal cases. 3) Change in thinking: At the time of Betts v. Brady decision less than half require appointment of counsel to poor. At time of Gideon's arrest, over 45 states required it. 4) Broad support to overturn Betts v. Brady; Twenty-two states filed amicus curiae briefs to support sixth amendment regardless of type of offense

1) Betts v. Brady established that defendant is entitled to counsel if he can show he would be denied fair trial without counsel 2) U.S. has a federal system in which the federal government may no exercise arbitrary power over states. State should be flexible to adopt system it chooses. 3) Possible for defendant to have fair trial without lawyer 4) SCOTUS should uphold Betts v. Brady; only decided 20 years before. 5) If Betts v. Brady is overturned, states would have to provide lawyers to all defendants, which means tremendous burden on the taxpayers of every state

- Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Gideon - Supreme Court overturned part of Betts v. Brady - Protection from the Sixth Amendment applied to state courts as well as federal courts. State courts must appoint counsel to represent defendants who cannot afford to pay for their own lawyers if charged with a felony.

- 6th and 14th amendment - Powell v. Alabama (1932) - Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) - Betts v. Brady (1942)