Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Study
In the groundbreaking case Gideon vs. Wainwright we are given a prime example of a Supreme Court case and its impact on federalism. Gideon was accused of felony burglary charges after an eyewitness placed him at the scene of a robbery. Although there was no evidence of him committing the crime, police arrested him and charged him with the theft based solely on an eye witness report. The sequences of events that would follow would change the way states were ordered to provide due process and create a fair and balanced trial for all felony trials.
Prior to Gideon, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 6th and14th Amendments did not require the appointment of counsel in every criminal case, but counsel should be appointed for an indigent defendant whenever a special circumstance was present that would make it difficult for that person to receive a fair trial without the assistance of counsel.” (Jacob 11; Vol. 87). Most defendants were only appointed an attorney for major crimes they committed such as murder. People who were uneducated, minorities and disabled fell into the category as those with special circumstances. Those particular cases that were brought to the Supreme Court actually had their court decisions overturned if they had been denied legal …show more content…
The Supreme Court decided that having counsel is necessary to receive a fair trial. “Gideon transformed criminal prosecutions and generated significant funding for indigent defense nationally.” (273; WEB) Such funding provides all indigents with a defense attorney at the State level regardless of any special circumstances or the severity of the crime. Gideon’s case changed the way the 6th and 14th Amendments were interpreted thus the Federal powers forced the States to recognize this need for all defendants regardless of their incomes to receive a fair trial by way of free legal
Prior to Gideon, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 6th and14th Amendments did not require the appointment of counsel in every criminal case, but counsel should be appointed for an indigent defendant whenever a special circumstance was present that would make it difficult for that person to receive a fair trial without the assistance of counsel.” (Jacob 11; Vol. 87). Most defendants were only appointed an attorney for major crimes they committed such as murder. People who were uneducated, minorities and disabled fell into the category as those with special circumstances. Those particular cases that were brought to the Supreme Court actually had their court decisions overturned if they had been denied legal …show more content…
The Supreme Court decided that having counsel is necessary to receive a fair trial. “Gideon transformed criminal prosecutions and generated significant funding for indigent defense nationally.” (273; WEB) Such funding provides all indigents with a defense attorney at the State level regardless of any special circumstances or the severity of the crime. Gideon’s case changed the way the 6th and 14th Amendments were interpreted thus the Federal powers forced the States to recognize this need for all defendants regardless of their incomes to receive a fair trial by way of free legal