Gideon v. Wainwright and Talk:Allen Township, Darke County, Ohio: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 245122866 by 155.68.152.33 (talk) |
talk page tag, Replaced: {{OH-Project|class=|importance=}} → {{OH-Project|class=start|importance=mid}} using AWB |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{OH-Project|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{SCOTUSCase |
|||
|Litigants=Gideon v. Wainwright |
|||
|ArgueDate=January 15 |
|||
|ArgueYear=1963 |
|||
|DecideDate=March 18 |
|||
|DecideYear=1963 |
|||
|FullName=[[Clarence Earl Gideon]] v. [[Louie L. Wainwright]], Corrections Director |
|||
|USVol=372 |
|||
|USPage=335 |
|||
|Citation=83 S. Ct. 792; 9 L. Ed. 2d 799; 5951 U.S. LEXIS 1942; 23 Ohio Op. 2d 258; 93 A.L.R.2d 733; |
|||
|Prior=Defendant convicted, Bay County, Florida Circuit Court (1961); habeas petition denied w/o opinion, sub. nom. ''Gideon v. Cochrane'', 135 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1961) |
|||
|Subsequent=On remand, 153 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1963); defendant acquitted, Bay County, Florida Circuit Court (1963) |
|||
|Holding=The [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] [[right to counsel]] is a fundamental right applied to the states via the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[due process clause]], and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of Florida reversed. |
|||
|SCOTUS=1962-1965 |
|||
|OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/argument/ |
|||
|Majority=Black |
|||
|Joined Majority=Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg |
|||
|Concurrence=Douglas |
|||
|Concurrence2=Harlan |
|||
|LawsApplied=[[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. VI]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]] |
|||
}} |
|||
'''''Gideon v. Wainwright''''', {{ussc|372|335|1963}}, is a [[landmark decision|landmark case]] in [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys. |
|||
==Background of the Case== |
|||
Between midnight and 8:00 am on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in [[Panama City, Florida|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. |
|||
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled in ''[[Powell v. Alabama]],'' {{ussc|287|45|1932}}, the famous case of the [[Scottsboro Boys]], that the [[right to counsel]] was implied in the [[Bill of rights|Bill of Rights]] and was an essential freedom. In ''[[Betts v. Brady]],'' {{ussc|316|455|1942}}, the Court modified this doctrine slightly, ruling that whether or not a lawyer was required depended on the circumstances of each case. Specifically, the Court focused on a case-by-case determination if the lack of representation affected a denial of [[due process]], thus rendering the trial unfair. Over the next twenty years, the Court heard several more cases and in all of them ruled that in fact a lawyer was required. Due to the difficulty of proving the high standard of a due process error, nearly all such cases involved the [[death sentence|death penalty]]. This view had not changed by the early 1960s. |
|||
He appeared in court and was too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
'''''The COURT:''' Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot 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 that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.''<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
'''''GIDEON:''' The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.</blockquote>'' |
|||
Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his own counsel and conduct a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary. |
|||
From his prison cell at [[Florida State Prison]], making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary to the [[Florida Department of Corrections]], [[Louie L. Wainwright]]. He argued that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], had been violated. |
|||
The court assigned him a prominent [[Washington, D.C.]] attorney, [[Abe Fortas]] of the law firm [[Arnold & Porter]] (later appointed as a Supreme Court justice, serving from 1965–1969) . |
|||
==Decision== |
|||
The decision was announced on 18 March 1963; the opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice [[Hugo Black]]. The two concurrent opinions were written by Justices Clark and Harlan. |
|||
In it, the court specifically praised its previous ruling in ''[[Powell v. Alabama]]'', and overruled ''[[Betts v. Brady]]'', which allowed selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states, itself previously binding only in federal cases. Instead, the court held that the right to the assistance of counsel was a fundamental right, essential for a fair trial, thereby emphasizing the procedural safeguards which were needed for due process of law. In this sense, the meaning is specifically that no one, regardless of wealth, education or class, should be charged with a crime and then be forced to face his accusers in court without the guidance of counsel. |
|||
Justice Clark's concurrent opinion stated that the Constitution makes no distinction between capital and non capital cases, so a defender needs to be provided in all cases. Justice Harlan's concurrent opinion stated that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge constituted in itself special circumstances requiring the services of counsel at trial. |
|||
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for "further action not inconsistent with this decision." Gideon was then retried: represented by [[W. Fred Turner]], his appointed counsel in this second trial, he was acquitted. |
|||
''Gideon v. Wainwright'' was one of a series of Supreme Court decisions which confirmed the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to counsel during trial, on appeal, and in the subsequent cases of ''[[Massiah v. United States]],'' 377 U.S. 201 (1964) and ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'' 384 U.S. 436 (1966), even during police interrogation. |
|||
==Aftermath== |
|||
===Impact on courts=== |
|||
The former arrangement of upholding the “fair trial” system, where the state was given a fair amount of latitude in criminal proceedings as long as there were no “shocking departures from fair procedure” was quickly being discarded in favor of a firm set of “…procedural guarantees…” stemming from previous constitutional amendments.<ref name="Beaney1963p1153">{{cite journal |last=Beaney |first=William M. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1963 |month= |title=The Right to Counsel: Past, Present, and Future |journal=Virginia Law Review |volume=49 |issue=6 |pages=1150–1159 [p. 1153] |doi=10.2307/1071050 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref> As a result, when ''Gideon'' came before the court they decided to reverse ''Betts'' and took upon a system of rules that did not require a case-by-case analysis, but instead created the necessary procedure by its very nature.<ref name="Beaney1963p1153" /> In this way, the case helped to refine ''[[stare decisis]]'': when it should be upheld and what standard should case decisions be tested against precedent to achieve a legitimate practicability in the eyes of the Supreme Court and lower courts.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Israel |first=Jerold H. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1963 |month= |title=''Gideon v. Wainwright'': The ‘Art’ of Overruling |journal=The Supreme Court Review |volume=1963 |issue= |pages=211–272 [p. 218] |doi=10.2307/3108734 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref> This confusion resulted in several new methods practiced by the Supreme Court when overturning a previous ruling to maintain the “…impersonal qualities of the judicial process…” and keep the sense that legal system is without feeling or prejudice and simply applies justice to those who come before it.<ref>Israel (1963), p. 219.</ref> |
|||
===Public defender system=== |
|||
Many changes have been made in the prosecution and legal representation of indigent defendants since the Gideon ruling was handed down in 1963. The decision in ''Gideon'' created and expanded public defenders. Immediately following the decision, Florida required that public defenders must work in all sixteen of the state's circuit courts.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Gideon’s Promise, Still Unkept |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DA1431F93BA25750C0A965958260 |work=The New York Times |publisher= |date=1993-03-18 |accessdate=2008-08-08 }}</ref> The need for more public defenders also led to a need to ensure that the defenders are properly trained in legal defense to allow defendants to receive as fair of a case as possible. Several states and counties followed suit. Washington D.C., for instance, is one such city that has created a training program for their public defenders. Public defenders in District of Columbia must receive rigorous training before they are allowed to represent defendants, and they must continue their training in order to remain current and up-to-date.<ref name=Abel2006>Abel, Laura. “2006 ''Edward v. Sparer'' Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright.” ''Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review'', Volume 15. Summer 2006.</ref> Another program in the Bronx in New York City requires public defenders to undergo training and provides defendants with “holistic training.”<ref name=Abel2006 /> Recently the [[American Bar Association]] and the [[National Legal Aid and Defender Association]] set minimum training requirements, caseload levels, and experience requirements for its lawyers.<ref name=Abel2006 /> |
|||
===Right to counsel=== |
|||
Among the States, the ''Doughty v. Maxwell'' decision demonstrates the differences between how state and federal governments address the waiver standards of the right to counsel. In this case the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision in ''Doughty v. Sacks'', which held that regardless of ''Gideon'', the defendant waives his or her right to counsel by entering a plea of guilty. ''Doughty'' took place in [[Ohio]], which had its own way of interpreting the right to counsel as many states do including [[Pennsylvania]], [[West Virginia]], and [[Florida]]. Pennsylvania and West Virginia also deemed that the right to counsel was waived when a plea of guilty was entered. In [[Florida]], at least before ''Gideon'', the defendant had to request the right to counsel; otherwise, it was automatically waived. This varies a great deal with federal law which has strict guidelines for waiving the right to counsel. Under federal law, the defendant can only waive his or her right to trial if it is clear that the defendant understands the "charges, the consequences of the various pleas, and the availability of counsel."<ref>{{cite journal |author=——— |year=1964 |month= |title=Waiver of the Right to Counsel in State Court Cases: The Effect of ''Gideon v. Wainwright'' |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=591–602 |doi=10.2307/1598554 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref> |
|||
===Modern reform efforts=== |
|||
There are modern reform efforts that are aiming to expand the ''Gideon'' decision to include cases regarding property. In August 2006, the American Bar Association urged states to provide a lawyer for low-income people in categories of civil proceeding involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health, or childcare.<ref name=Dana2006>{{cite journal |last=Dana |first=Howard H., Jr. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2006 |month= |title=2006 Edward v. Sparer Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: Introduction: ABA 2006 Resolution on Civil Right to Counsel |journal=Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review |volume=15 |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref> The President of the American Bar Association stated that in regards to civil matters “poor litigants have basic human needs which deserve as much attention as the interest in liberty found to be the basic of criminal right to counsel in Gideon.”<ref name=Dana2006 /> The decision of how this will proceed is not yet finalized, but it is proposed that each state will have a say in which rights should be recognized by legislation.<ref name=Dana2006 /> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* ''[[Gideon's Trumpet]]'' |
|||
* [[Clarence Earl Gideon]] |
|||
* ''[[Dusky v. United States]]'' – right to competency evaluation before proceeding to trial |
|||
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 372]] |
|||
* [[Miranda warning]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
*{{cite journal |author=——— |year=2000 |month= |title=''Gideon'''s Promise Unfulfilled: The Need for Litigated Reform of Indigent Defense |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=113 |issue=8 |pages=2062–2079 |doi=10.2307/1342319 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Uelmen |first=Gerald F. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1995 |month= |title=2001: A Train Ride: A Guided Tour of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel |journal=Law and Contemporary Problems |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=13–29 |doi=10.2307/1192165 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Van Alstyne |first=William W. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1965 |month= |title=In ''Gideon'''s Wake: Harsher Penalties and the ‘Successful’ Criminal Appellant |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=74 |issue=4 |pages=606–639 |doi=10.2307/794613 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./372/335/ Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)] (opinion full text). |
|||
*[http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case17.htm Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 1963 Indigent's Right To Appointed Counsel] |
|||
*[http://www.leoncountyfl.gov/pd/ History of Office of Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit – Leon County Florida] |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
|||
[[Category:United States rights of the accused case law]] |
|||
[[Category:1963 in law]] |
|||
Revision as of 02:21, 14 October 2008
 | Ohio Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
