gideon v wainright :: essays research papers

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT_______________________________________________372 U.S. 335 (1975)FACTS Gideon, the petitioner, was charged in a Florida sound out approach for breaking and entering into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. This is a felony under Florida State Law. collectable to lack of funds, he asked the court to appoint advocator for him and was denied. The court utter that under Florida state law, focus could only be appointed to even off a defendant when that person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon unsuccessfully represented himself at trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty. He was sentenced to quin years in state prison. Gideon then filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition (A judicial mandate ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or non that person is imprisoned unlawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. The petition is brought by a person who obj ects to his own or another(prenominal)s detention or imprisonment). He alleged that the courts refusal to appoint counsel for him violated his mightily to counsel under the one-sixth Amendment. In federal official official Court, counsel must be appointed to an indigent defendant unless differently waived. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief. The United States Supreme Court (USSC) granted certiorari, which gives them the part to review the case. The court relies on the decision in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland State Court. He asked the court to appoint counsel for him and was denied. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to octonary years in prison. The court in Betts held that the Sixth Amendment was not a fundamental right and therefore was not applicable in State Courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. ISSUE Whether right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is applicable in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether the right to counsel is considered to be a fundamental right and essential to a fair trial.HOLDING Here, the USSC overturned the decision in Betts v. Brady and held that appointment of counsel to defendants in all criminal prosecutions in federal court, may also be applied to defendants in state court under the Fourteenth Amendment. REASONING Many former USSC decisions have held that assistance of counsel is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment and is deemed necessary to fancy fundamental rights of life and liberty.