Gideon v. Wainwright
| Gideon v. Wainwright yeah buddy(: | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 | |
| Full case name | Clarence E. Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, Corrections Director |
| Citations | 372 U.S. 335 (more) 83 S. Ct. 792; 9 L. Ed. 2d 799; 5951 U.S. LEXIS 1942; 23 Ohio Op. 2d 258; 93 A.L.R.2d 733; |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Bay County, Florida Circuit Court (1961); habeas petition denied w/o opinion, sub. nom. Gideon v. Cochrane, 135 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1961) |
| Subsequent | On remand, 153 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1963); defendant acquitted, Bay County, Florida Circuit Court (1963) |
| Holding | |
| The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of Florida reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Black, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Clark |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV | |
Gideon v. Wainwright YEAH BUDDY(:, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.
Background of the Case
Between midnight and 8:00 am on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Someone broke a door, smashed the soda machine and record player, and stole money from a register. Later that day, a witness reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning leaving with a wine and money in his pockets. Based on this accusation alone, the police arrested him and charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny.
The Supreme Court had ruled in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the right to counsel was implied in the Bill of Rights and was an essential freedom. In Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the Court had modified this doctrine slightly, ruling that whether or not a lawyer was required depended on the circumstances of each case. Specifically, the Court focused on a case-by-case determination if the lack of representation affected a denial of due process, thus rendering the trial unfair. Over the next twenty years, the Court heard several more cases and in all of them ruled that, in fact, a lawyer was required. Due to the difficulty of proving the high standard of a due process error, nearly all such cases involved the death penalty. This view had not changed by the early 1960s.
Gideon appeared in court and was too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place:
The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.
Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his own counsel and conduct a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary.
From his prison cell at Florida State Prison, making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright. He argued that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
The court assigned him a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney, Abe Fortas of the law firm Arnold Fortas & Porter, a future Supreme Court justice. Bruce Jacob argued the case for respondents.
Decision
The decision was announced on 18 March 1963; the opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Hugo Black. The three concurring opinions were written by Justices Clark, Douglas and Harlan.
In it, the court specifically praised its previous ruling in Powell v. Alabama, and overruled Betts v. Brady, which allowed selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states, itself previously binding only in federal cases. Instead, the court held that the right to the assistance of counsel was a fundamental right, essential for a fair trial, thereby emphasizing the procedural safeguards which were needed for due process of law. In this sense, the meaning is specifically that no one, regardless of wealth, education or class, should be charged with a crime and then be forced to face his accusers in court without the guidance of counsel.
Justice Clark's concurrent opinion stated that the Constitution never says whether a case is capital and non capital, so legal counsel needs to be provided in all cases. Justice Harlan's concurrent opinion stated that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge constituted in itself special circumstances requiring the services of counsel at trial.
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for "further action not inconsistent with this decision." Gideon was then retried: represented by W. Fred Turner, his appointed counsel in this second trial, he was acquitted.
Gideon v. Wainwright was one of a series of Supreme Court decisions which confirmed the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to counsel during trial, on appeal, and in the subsequent cases of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), even during police interrogation.
Aftermath
Impact on courts
The former arrangement of upholding the “fair trial” system, where the state was given a fair amount of latitude in criminal proceedings as long as there were no “shocking departures from fair procedure” was quickly being discarded in favor of a firm set of “…procedural guarantees…” stemming from previous constitutional amendments.[1] As a result, when Gideon came before the court they decided to reverse Betts and took upon a system of rules that did not require a case-by-case analysis, but instead created the necessary procedure by its very nature.[1] In this way, the case helped to refine stare decisis: when it should be upheld and what standard should case decisions be tested against precedent to achieve a legitimate practicability in the eyes of the Supreme Court and lower courts.[2] This confusion resulted in several new methods practiced by the Supreme Court when overturning a previous ruling to maintain the “…impersonal qualities of the judicial process…” and keep the sense that legal system is without feeling or prejudice and simply applies justice to those who come before it.[3]
Public defender system
Many changes have been made in the prosecution and legal representation of indigent defendants since the Gideon ruling was handed down in 1963. The decision in Gideon created and expanded public defenders. Immediately following the decision, Florida required that public defenders must work in all sixteen of the state's circuit courts.[4] The need for more public defenders also led to a need to ensure that the defenders are properly trained in legal defense to allow defendants to receive as fair of a case as possible. Several states and counties followed suit. Washington D.C., for instance, is one such city that has created a training program for their public defenders. Public defenders in District of Columbia must receive rigorous training before they are allowed to represent defendants, and they must continue their training in order to remain current and up-to-date.[5] Another program in the Bronx in New York City requires public defenders to undergo training and provides defendants with “holistic training.”[5] Recently the American Bar Association and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association set minimum training requirements, caseload levels, and experience requirements for its lawyers.[5]
Right to counsel
Among the states, the Doughty v. Maxwell decision demonstrates the differences between how state and federal governments address the waiver standards of the right to counsel. In this case the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision in Doughty v. Sacks, which held that regardless of Gideon, the defendant waives his or her right to counsel by entering a plea of guilty. Doughty took place in Ohio, which had its own way of interpreting the right to counsel as many states do, including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Florida. Pennsylvania and West Virginia also deemed that the right to counsel was waived when a plea of guilty was entered. In Florida, at least before Gideon, the defendant had to request the right to counsel; otherwise, it was automatically waived. This varies a great deal with federal law which has strict guidelines for waiving the right to counsel. Under federal law, the defendant can only waive his or her right to trial if it is clear that the defendant understands the "charges, the consequences of the various pleas, and the availability of counsel."[6]
Modern era
Expansion efforts
There are modern reform efforts that are aiming to expand the Gideon decision to include cases regarding property. In August 2006, the American Bar Association urged states to provide a lawyer for low-income people in categories of civil proceeding involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health, or childcare.[7] The President of the American Bar Association stated that in regards to civil matters “poor litigants have basic human needs which deserve as much attention as the interest in liberty found to be the basic of criminal right to counsel in Gideon.”[7] The decision of how this will proceed is not yet finalized, but it is proposed that each state will have a say in which rights should be recognized by legislation.[7]
Problems
In 2008, The New York Times reported that public defenders' offices around the country were so swamped with cases that they were refusing to take new clients, asserting that if they did so, their clients would not be able to receive the time or attention necessary for competent counsel.[8] In September 2008, a judge in Florida ruled that Miami-Dade County public defenders could decline requests for defense from those accused of lesser felonies, saving their time and attention for those clients accused of more serious crimes. Miami public defenders in charge of felony cases now defend 500 cases a year, up from 367, and those who handle misdemeanor trials have upwards of 2,000 cases on their docket. The state appealed the judge's ruling in the Miami-Dade case, because if it is upheld, they will have to contract with private-practice attorneys to provide public defenders to clients, at much greater expense to the state.[8]
Some criminal justice experts believe public defense is deteriorating around the country, which could lead to innocent clients pressured to plead guilty or convicted due to a weak defense. Those who appeal their cases and cite inadequate defense have a hard time getting convictions overturned.[8]
Florida State Senator Victor Crist believes that public defenders' offices should charge their clients fees, even if the payments had to be delayed. In Missouri, the state defenders' office has been allowed to decline misdemeanor cases or those which will not result in prison time for the defendant.[8]
Kentucky's state public advocate, Ed Monahan, said: “Since Gideon, I don’t remember a time when the challenges to adequate representation have been so great.” Michigan requires counties to defend the accused, but it does not provide any state funds to do so. Some counties don't provide a lawyer for misdemeanor offenses; in some counties, judges hire attorneys for a flat fee, which a report from the Legal Aid Society claims encourages attorneys to skimp on defense. The state government is already having problems meeting budgets and has no funds to provide the cities and counties for legal defense.[8]
See also
References
- ^ a b Beaney, William M. (1963). "The Right to Counsel: Past, Present, and Future". Virginia Law Review. 49 (6): 1150–1159 [p. 1153]. doi:10.2307/1071050.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help) - ^ Israel, Jerold H. (1963). "Gideon v. Wainwright: The 'Art' of Overruling". The Supreme Court Review. 1963: 211–272 [p. 218]. doi:10.2307/3108734.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help) - ^ Israel (1963), p. 219.
- ^ "Gideon's Promise, Still Unkept". The New York Times. 1993-03-18. Retrieved 2008-08-08.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ a b c Abel, Laura. “2006 Edward v. Sparer Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright.” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, Volume 15. Summer 2006.
- ^ ——— (1964). "Waiver of the Right to Counsel in State Court Cases: The Effect of Gideon v. Wainwright". University of Chicago Law Review. 31 (3): 591–602. doi:10.2307/1598554.
{{cite journal}}:|author=has numeric name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - ^ a b c Dana, Howard H., Jr. (2006). "2006 Edward v. Sparer Symposium: Civil Gideon: Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: Introduction: ABA 2006 Resolution on Civil Right to Counsel". Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review. 15.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c d e Eric Eckholm (November 8, 2008). "Citing Workload, Public Lawyers Reject New Cases". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
Further reading
- ——— (2000). "Gideon's Promise Unfulfilled: The Need for Litigated Reform of Indigent Defense". Harvard Law Review. 113 (8): 2062–2079. doi:10.2307/1342319.
{{cite journal}}:|author=has numeric name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - Uelmen, Gerald F. (1995). "2001: A Train Ride: A Guided Tour of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel". Law and Contemporary Problems. 58 (1): 13–29. doi:10.2307/1192165.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help) - Van Alstyne, William W. (1965). "In Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties and the 'Successful' Criminal Appellant". Yale Law Journal. 74 (4): 606–639. doi:10.2307/794613.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help)