Gideon v Wainwright Gideon and his Case in the United States
Gideon v Wainwright Gideon and his Case
Introduction to Gideon v Wainwright Gideon and his Case
In 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon, a 51-year-old small-time criminal, was arrested and charged with burglarizing the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida. When he was brought to court on the charge of burglary, a felony, Gideon informed the judge that he could not afford to hire a lawyer. He asked the court to provide one for him, asserting that ‘the Supreme Court of the United States says I am entitled to be represented by counsel.’ The trial judge rejected Gideon’s request because the crime with which he was charged was not a capital offense.
During his jury trial, Gideon conducted his own defense. Although Gideon did a fairly good job for a lay person, his defense was weak and he made many legal errors. The jury convicted Gideon of burglary, and the judge gave him the maximum sentence of five years in prison. From prison Gideon filed a handwritten petition to the Florida Supreme Court, asking it to review his conviction. Gideon argued that the trial court had denied him his rights under the Constitution of the United States when it refused to provide him counsel. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this claim without issuing a formal written opinion. In January 1962 Gideon sent a handwritten petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that he had been denied his federal constitutional rights by the Florida courts.
Gideon’s appeal was made in forma pauperis (a Latin term meaning “in the form of a pauper”). Thus, the Court did not require that he pay the normal filing fee, which at the time was $100. Nor did he have to supply the Court with 40 printed copies of his petition, another standard requirement. Although the Court at least considers every petition, most pauperis petitions are rejected. However, after reviewing Gideon’s petition, the Court asked the state of Florida for a formal response to his claim. The Florida attorney general then sent the Court a formal legal brief, arguing that the Court should not hear Gideon’s case.
Florida’s response was based mostly on precedents (previous decisions) of the U.S. Supreme Court. When Gideon told the Florida judge that he had a right to a lawyer, he was in fact incorrect. In the case of Powell v. Alabama (1932) the Supreme Court ruled that a poor defendant was entitled to an appointed attorney when charged with a capital offense under state law-for example, murder. In Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) the Court concluded that poor defendants in all federal criminal cases were also guaranteed the right to counsel. However, in Betts v. Brady (1944) the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not guarantee a right to appointed counsel for defendants in state trials. In its brief, Florida stated that the Supreme Court should not take Gideon’s case because Florida had been under no legal obligation to provide him with an attorney. In June 1962 the Supreme Court rejected this argument. Instead, the Court agreed to hear Gideon’s appeal during formal argument the following year. The Court directed attorneys for both sides to discuss whether the holding (legal rule) in Betts should be reconsidered.” (1)