Wainwright: Why is it important? Background and Supreme Court case In , the Supreme Court heard the case of Clarence Earl Gideon, who had been convicted of breaking and entering a Florida pool hall with the intent to commit a misdemeanor — considered a felony under Florida law.
Areas of Practice. Drug Crimes. Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding if left standing would require us to reject Gideon's claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel. Upon full reconsideration we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled. Justice Black, who wrote a dissenting opinion in the Betts case, had earned the legal and constitutional victory he sought over 20 years ago.
Gideon presented such a parallel set of facts and circumstances that the justices would either have to affirm the Betts decision or overturn it. For Black, there was no other outcome but to overturn Betts. It is rare for the Supreme Court to so explicitly overturn its own precedent , due in large part to the court's adherence to stare decisis , so it is important to understand what prompted the court to overturn Betts.
In Justice Black's view, it wasn't that the court was so much rejecting Betts as much as it was the court returning to adherence to its own earlier precedents, such as Powell v. Alabama , Grosjean v. American Press Co. Zerbst In Justice Black's words, [1]. 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 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 We accept Betts v.
Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is "fundamental and essential to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights The fact is that in deciding as it did - that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial" - the Court in Betts v.
Brady made an abrupt break with its own well-considered precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder we believe than the new, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents but also 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.
This seems to us to be an obvious truth. In noting that the Betts court "departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court's holding in Powell v. Alabama rested" and in noting that the states' amicus curiae Latin for "friend of the court.
Brady as well. Harlan each wrote concurring opinions. Justice Douglas, in concurring with the majority, would have gone further and incorporated When a U. Supreme Court opinion makes a provision of the Bill of Rights binding on state governments also. Such rights are considered "fundamental", a denial of which constitutes denial of liberty without due process of law, which states are prohibited from doing under the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
Speaking candidly about his position, however, Justice Douglas stated, "Unfortunately it has never commanded a Court. After being retried with the help of a local attorney, who had the time and skill to investigate his case and conduct a competent defense, Gideon was acquitted of all charges. The right to appointed counsel has been extended to misdemeanor and juvenile proceedings. Today, states and localities make use of a variety of systems to provide indigent defense, from state- and county-based public defenders, to appointment systems that reimburse private attorneys who represent indigent defendants.
Despite the significant progress that has been made over 50 years after the decision, the promise of Gideon remains unfulfilled. The quality of criminal defense services varies widely across states and localities. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. 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. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
0コメント