Verified Document

Gideon V Wainwright 1963 Citation Of Case: Term Paper

Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Citation of Case: 372 U.S. 335 S.Ct. 155 (1963)

Facts:

Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a non-capital felony for breaking and entering a poolroom. He appeared in the court without funds and was unable to hire a lawyer for his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial and was convicted by a jury. The court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. Gideon appealed to the State Supreme Court for habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied...

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue:

Did the state court's denial to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Decision of the Court:

The Court, in its unanimous decision delivered by Justice Hugo Black, held that the right of an indigent defendant to have the assistance of counsel in a criminal trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. Case was reversed and cause remanded.

Reasoning of the Court:

The Court considered it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of…

Sources used in this document:
Works Cited

Gideon V. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)." Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. FindLaw. April 21, 2004 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=372&invol=335
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Gideon V. Wainwright Case Name:
Words: 1790 Length: 6 Document Type: Term Paper

The Fourteenth Amendment is specifically concerned with due process. Moreover, while due process may not be violated by allowing states to establish different guidelines for their criminal trials and procedures than those established in the federal system, the Court seems to recognize that if something has been established as a necessary minimum to guarantee due process in the federal system, it will also be the minimum in the states. One

Brief This Case Miranda V. Arizona
Words: 1201 Length: 3 Document Type: Term Paper

Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966) This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now