At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.
Full Answer
Who was Clarence Earl Gideon, and where did he get the idea that he was entitled to a free lawyer? Clarence Earl Gideon was not well-educated, but he was far from dumb or ignorant.
Charged with breaking and entering into a Panama City, Florida, pool hall, Clarence Earl Gideon Gideon, was denied his request that an attorney be appointed to represent him. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that defense counsel is "fundamental and essential" to a fair trial. What did Gideon do? Clarence E. Gideon v.
In most of the prisons in which Gideon had done time, prisoners routinely filed appeals and petitions claiming, per Betts v. Brady, 7 that the trial court had erred in failing to find "special circumstances" - such as illiteracy, youth, mental defect-which would have entitled them to court-appointed counsel. Gideon's petition did not.
Later in the petition for habeas corpus, signed and apparently prepared by petitioner himself, he stated, 'I, Clarence Earl Gideon, claim that I was denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.' Of the many such cases to reach this Court, recent examples are Carnley v.
Convicted of breaking and entering in Florida, Clarence Earl Gideon set a major legal precedent when he challenged his conviction, claiming that he could not afford an attorney and should have been appointed one by the court.
Claiming he had the right to an attorney, but could not afford one, Gideon petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. After the Court denied Gideon’s petition, as a last resort, he submitted a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. He asserted that the Constitution entitled him to legal representation, and without it he was denied due process of law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.
on the morning of the crime, Gideon allegedly smashed a window leading into the pool room and stole approximately a dozen bottles of beer, a dozen bottles of Coca-Cola, several bottles of wine, about $5.00 from the cigarette machine, and $60.00 from the jukebox. Police arrested Gideon on a tip given to them by Henry Cook, ...
On August 4, 1961, Gideon went to trial for breaking and entering with the intent to steal. His case came before the court of Judge Robert L. McCrary, Jr., where a jury of six men convened to hear the opposing arguments. Unable to pay for legal representation, Gideon informed the court, before the trial began, of his inability to procure the help of an attorney. Despite Gideon’s financial limitations, the law at the time—as articulated in the Supreme Court decision, Betts v. Brady —held that unless the defendant’s case met an ambiguously defined set of “special circumstances,” the judge could only appoint counsel to a defendant if he or she was charged with a capital offense. With no other options, Gideon decided to act as his own lawyer and proceeded to try the case by himself. He made several beleaguered attempts to examine witnesses, but, lacking any legal training, he failed to expose the glaring weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
The Court ruled in Gideon’s favor, holding that any person charged with a crime should have the right to an attorney regardless of his or her financial status. Although the Court usually refrained from meddling with established precedents, in Gideon v. Wainwright, they overturned a 20-year-old decision and asserted that the right to assistance of counsel is “fundamental” and the Fourteenth Amendment does make the right constitutionally required in state courts. Consequently, they reversed Gideon’s conviction and remanded the action to the Florida Supreme Court.
Henry Cook , the sole eyewitness, gave the most damaging testimony when he stated under oath that he saw Gideon inside the pool room at the time of the crime and then, several minutes later, coming out with a pint of wine in his hand. Although Cook testified that, after a night of dancing, his friends happened to drop him off at the exact time and place of the crime, Gideon failed to press Cook any further on the happenstance nature of his whereabouts. As a result, the jury found Gideon guilty, and the judge imposed the maximum prison term of five years.
Gideon, a 50-year-old unemployed Caucasian with a long history of juvenile and adult felonies, was convicted of breaking and entering into the Bay Harbor Pool Room on June 3, 1961, in Panama City, Florida. At around 5:30 a.m. on the morning of the crime, Gideon allegedly smashed a window leading into the pool room and stole approximately ...
Lower Court Ruling: The trial judge denied Gideon’s request for a court-appointed attorney because, under Florida law, counsel could only be appointed for a poor defendant charged with a capital offense. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and denied all relief.
The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon’s petition. Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.
Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon’s petition.
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law.
The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that “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.” He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”
At trial, Gideon represented himself – he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a career criminal whose actions helped change the American legal system. Accused of committing a robbery, Gideon was too poor to hire a lawyer to represent him in court. After he was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, Gideon took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a landmark legal decision, Gideon v.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and assigned a lawyer named Abe Fortas to represent him. Fortas would go on to become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued on Gideon’s behalf that all individuals accused of committing a felony should receive legal representation.
Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that under the U.S. Constitution, state courts are required to appoint lawyers for those individuals accused of committing a crime who cannot pay for legal representation. Gideon was born on August 30, 1910, to Charles R. and Virginia Gregory Gideon in Hannibal, Missouri.
Clarence Earl Gideon died of cancer on January 18, 1972, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
A lawyer—not a great lawyer, just an ordinary, competent lawyer—could have made ashes of the case.”. Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon refused to give up, however, and began to research the law.
When Clarence was five years old, his mother remarried. He later remembered, “My stepfather never could accept me or I could not accept him. My mother was very strict and my life as a child was of the strict discipline.”. He described himself as someone who could not conform and “was miserable.
On March 18, 1963, all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon, stating in part, “Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”. As a result, Gideon did not go free, but he did receive a new trial with legal representation and was acquitted of robbing the pool hall.
When he asked for a court appointed counsel, he was denied this because according to Florida law, court appointed counsel was only provided in the case of a capital offense. He represented himself, was found guilty, and was sent to prison for five years. Fast Facts: Gideon v.
The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren agreed to hear the case. They assigned Gideon a future Supreme Court justice, Abe Fortas, to be his attorney. Fortas was a prominent Washington DC attorney. He successfully argued Gideon's case, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gideon's favor.
Brady (1942). In this case, Smith Betts, a farm worker in Maryland had asked for counsel to represent him for a robbery case. Just as with Gideon, this right was denied him because the state of Maryland would not provide attorneys except in capital case. The Supreme Court decided by a 6-3 decision that a right to an appointed counsel was not required in all cases in order for an individual to receive a fair trial and due process in state trials. It was basically left up to each state to decide when it would provide public counsel.
Gideon v. Wainwright was argued on January 15, 1963 and decided on March 18, 1963. Facts of Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of stealing from the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida on June 3, 1961. When he asked for a court appointed counsel, he was denied this because according to Florida law, ...
While in prison, Gideon studied in the library and prepared a handwritten Writ of Certiorari that he sent to the United States Supreme Court claiming that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney :
Justice Hugo Black dissented and wrote the opinion that if you were indigent you had an increased chance of conviction. In Gideon, the court stated that the right to an attorney was a fundamental right for a fair trial. They stated that due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, all states would be required to provide counsel in criminal cases. This significant case created the need for additional public defenders. Programs were developed in states around the country to help recruit and train public defenders. Today, the number of cases defended by public defenders is huge. For example, in 2011 in Miami Dade County, the largest of the 20 Florida Circuit Courts, approximately 100,000 cases were assigned to Public Defenders.
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 for his defense. (Italics Added)
By now practically a "professional defendant," Gideon appealed his conviction to the Florida Supreme Court on the ground that he was denied counsel and due process of law. The court turned down his petition.
Bruce R. Jacob, Memories of and Reflections About Gideon v. Wainwright, 33 Stetson L. Rev. 181 (2003). Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law at Stetson University, Prof. Jacob was the Assistant Attorney General of Florida who argued the state's case in Gideon v. Wainwright. See generally Bruce R. Jacob, Remembering Gideon's Lawyers, The Champion, June 2012 at 16.
Gideon had at least four felony convictions and a host of minor infractions and arrests on his record. He spent more than half of the next two decades behind bars, but he was also something of an escape artist. The first time he was locked up, at age 15, he escaped from the Hannibal jail.
In 1951, he was convicted of an unspecified crime in Texas and served 13 months. 6. In most of the prisons in which Gideon had done time, prisoners routinely filed appeals and petitions claiming, per Betts v.
Gideon died of cancer in Florida on January 18, 1972. He was only 61 years old. His family brought his body back to Hannibal, and buried him in an unmarked grave, a few feet from his natural father, Charles Roscoe Gideon.
In November 1984, the American Civil Liberties Union placed a granite headstone on his grave. 12 The stone quotes a line from the last paragraph of Gideon's November 1962 letter to Abe Fortas: "I believe that each era finds an improvement in law for the benefit of mankind." 13
Born august 30, 1910, in Hannibal, MO., Gideon had been in and out of prisons since he was 16. His father, a shoemaker, died when he was three, and his mother remarried. Gideon and his stepfather did not get along, and he ran away from home at age 14, "accept [ing] the life of a hobo and tramp," making his way as far as California before returning to Missouri about a year later. 2
McCrary in the Panama City Courthouse, and this time he had an experienced trial lawyer, W. Fred Turner, to defend him. All of the publicity resulted in a heavily bolstered prosecution team. In addition to William Harris, State Attorney J. Frank Adams and J. Paul Griffith were on hand to uphold the validity of the first conviction. Henry Cook was again the main prosecution witness but fared badly under Turner's incisive questioning. Particularly damaging was his admission that he had withheld details of his criminal record at the previous trial. Due in large part to Cook's poor showing, the jury acquitted Gideon of all charges.
Eight witnesses testified on the defendant's behalf. None proved helpful and Clarence Gideon was found guilty. The whole trial had lasted less than one day. Three weeks later Judge McCrary sentenced Gideon to the maximum: five years imprisonment.
Because one man sat down and wrote a letter, no felony defendant need ever fear facing a court alone. Gideon v. Wainwright extended the law's protection to all. More than that, it gave justice a better name.
When this application was denied Gideon penciled a five-page document entitled "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Directed to the Supreme Court." (A writ of certiorari is an order by an appellate court to hear a particular appeal.) In other words, Gideon was asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. The suit was placed on the docket under the title Gideon v. H.G. Cochran, Jr., who happened to be the director of Florida's Division of Corrections.
SIGNIFICANCE: One man, without benefit of wealth, privilege, or education, went up against the entire legal establishment, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated. In doing so, he brought about an historic change in American trial procedure: all felony defendants are entitled to legal representation, irrespective of the crime charged, and courts are to appoint an attorney if a defendant is too poor to hire one.
Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument "emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case." The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government." [n1] Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, "upon consideration thereof" but without an opinion, denied all relief. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, was decided by a divided [p338] Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. [n2] To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari. 370 U.S. 908. 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, 316 U.S. 455, 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. 3 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 .' 316 U.S., at 465, 62 S.Ct., at 1257, 86 L.Ed. 1595. 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 * * * afforded by constitutional and statutory provisions subsisting in the colonies and the states prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the national Constitution, and in the constitutional, legislative, and judicial history of the states to the present date.' 316 U.S., at 465, 62 S.Ct., at 1257. On the basis of this historical data the Court concluded that 'appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.' 316 U.S. at 471, 62 S.Ct., at 1261. It was for this reason the Betts Court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment 's guarantee of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or, in the words of that Court, 'made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment '. Plainly, had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant was 'a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,' it would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in a state court, just as the Sixth Amendment requires in a federal court.
Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, overruled. Pp. 336-345.
We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for acknowledging that those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This same principle was recognized, explained, and applied in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), a case upholding the right of counsel, where the Court held that despite sweeping language to the contrary in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 292, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884), the Fourteenth Amendment 'embraced' those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions," even though they had been 'specifically dealt with in another part of the Federal Constitution.' 287 U.S., at 67, 53 S.Ct., at 63, 77 L.Ed. 158. In many cases other than Powell and Betts, this Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this 'fundamental nature' and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment 's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. 4 For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment 's command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, 5 the Fourth Amendment 's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, 6 and the Eighth's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. 7 On the other hand, this Court in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment obligatory on the States. In so refusing, however, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cardozo, was careful to emphasize that 'immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states' and that guarantees 'in their origin * * * effective against the federal government alone' had by prior cases 'been taken over from the earlier articles of the Federal Bill of Rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption.' 302 U.S., at 324 — 325, 326, 58 S.Ct., at 152.
Since the adoption of that Amendment, ten Justices have felt that it protects from infringement by the States the privileges, protections, and safeguards granted by the Bill of Rights. 20. Justice Field, the first, Justice Harlan, and probably Justice Brewer, took that position in O'Neil v.
Asserted denial [of due process] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.
November 1, 1963: in a speech before The New England Conference on the Defense of Indigent Persons Accused of Crime, Attorney General Robert Kennedy stated: “If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look for merit in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed.”
August 4, 1961: being too poor to pay for counsel, Gideon requested that the court appoint one. Because of his extensive criminal record, he was familiar with that practice.
August 25, 1961: five days before his 51st birthday, McCrary sentenced Gideon to the maximum sentence: five years in prison.
Furthermore, although in the first trial Gideon had not cross-examined the cab driver about his statement that Gideon had told him to keep the taxi ride a secret, Turner’s cross-examination revealed that Gideon had said that to the cab driver previously because “he had trouble with his wife.”
Gideon married and got a job in a shoe factory. He lost his job and after committing a number of crimes in Miss ouri was sentenced to ten years for robbery.
When he was 14, Clarence ran away for a year.
Jacob argued that the issue at hand was a state issue, not federal; the practice of only appointing counsel under “special circumstances” in non-capital cases sufficed; that thousands of convictions would have to be thrown out if it were changed; and that Florida had followed for 21 years “in good faith” the 1942 Supreme Court ruling in Betts v. Brady.
Clarence Gideon was accused of breaking and entering and stealing wine and beer.
Clarence Gideon needs the 14th Amendment because he has been charged with a crime, and needs a lawyer.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution's due process clause, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of Florida reversed.
The concerns that the Justices have with the other inmates are that the others also did not have a lawyer, and, therefore, were also not given a fair trial.
The Fourteenth Amendment helps support Gideon's argument because he was denied a fair trial due to his lack of a lawyer.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
The 5th Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves a in criminal case, and prohibits a person from having the same trial.