Gideon v. Wainwright

1963

Court: US Supreme Court
Facts: Gideon was charged in Florida court in with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This is a felony in Florida. He was too poor to hire a lawyer, and his request for counsel to be appointed was denied. He therefore represented himself, apparently not laughably, but not well enough, and was found guilty. His appeal to the Florida supreme court was denied.

The problem of whether or not states are obligated to provide counsel to defendants in non-capital cases was the subject of much debate at the time, and it was common practice to deny it. The US Supreme Court had in fact ruled (in Betts v. Brady that due process was a "less rigid" concept than other rights.
Posture: Convicted in Florida court, conviction upheld in Florida Supreme Court
Issue: Whether or not the holding of Betts v. Brady should be reversed (i.e., does the due process clause of the 14th Amendment impose the obligation to appoint counsel for indigent defendants on the states?)
Holding: Reversed; Betts v. Brady overturned, remanded for further action
Rule: The 14th Amendment states:
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This imposes a duty on the states to grant defendents the rights enumerated in the 6th Amendment, specifically the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense"
Reasoning: Appeals to:
  • Precedent: Grosjean v. American Press Co., Johnson v. Zerbst, Avery v. Alabama, Smith v. O'Grady, Powell v. Alabama
  • Common sense: it's obvious that lawyers are essential to the proper conduct of a defense, since they're considered essential to prosecution.
  • Emotion: Citation from Powell v. Alabama
There's surprisingly little reasoning about the language of the 14th Amendment, except to the extent that it is quoted in the precedents mentioned.
Dicta: Betts v. Brady was an ill-considered departure from established precedent.