In , in Argersinger v. Hamlin, the Supreme Court further extended the right to legal counsel to include any defendant charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment. Gideon v. Wainwright was part of the Supreme Court's innovative approach to criminal justice in the s and s. The Warren Court extended an unprecedented array of rights to criminal defendants, including the right to counsel in interrogations, the right to remain silent during arrest and questioning, and the right to be informed of these rights see Miranda v.
Arizona []. The Court's affirmation of the constitutional rights of criminal defendants also included less famous cases. For example, in Griffin v. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.
The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and denied all relief. And what we do today does not foreclose the matter. Justice Clark wrote separately to reinforce his view that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel did not make distinctions between capital and noncapital cases.
In Justice Clark's words, "The Court's decision today, then, does no more than erase a distinction which has no basis in logic and an increasingly eroded basis in authority. The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process of law for the deprival of 'liberty' just as for deprival of 'life,' and there cannot constitutionally be a difference in the quality of the process based merely upon a supposed difference in the sanction involved.
How can the Fourteenth Amendment tolerate a procedure which it condemns in capital cases on the ground that deprival of liberty may be less onerous than deprival of life - a value judgment not universally accepted - or that only the latter deprival is irrevocable? I can find no acceptable rationalization for such a result, and I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court. Justice Harlan, though concurring in the court's judgment, wrote separately to note that the Betts decision was "entitled to a more respectful burial than has been accorded, at least on the part of those of us who were not on the Court when that case was decided.
I cannot subscribe to the view that Betts v. Brady represented 'an abrupt break with its own well-considered precedents. Brady, it did no more than to admit of the possible existence of special circumstances in noncapital as well as capital trials, while at the same time insisting that such circumstances be shown in order to establish a denial of due process.
That said, Justice Harlan spoke of his view regarding the principle of incorporation When a U. In agreeing with the Court that the right to counsel in a case such as this should now be expressly recognized as a fundamental right embraced in the Fourteenth Amendment, I wish to make a further observation. When we hold a right or immunity, valid against the Federal Government, to be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' and thus valid against the States, I do not read our past decisions to suggest that by so holding, we automatically carry over an entire body of federal law and apply it in full sweep to the States.
Any such concept would disregard the frequently wide disparity between the legitimate interests of the States and of the Federal Government, the divergent problems that they face, and the significantly different consequences of their actions In what is done today I do not understand the Court to depart from the principles laid down in Palko v.
In the view of scholars Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker, Gideon's impact is important for several reasons: [4]. Johnson, Jr. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error.
Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Wainwright Reference: U. Harlan Dissenting None Contents. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Washington, D. Gideon's Trumpet. New York, N. Voter information What's on my ballot? 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.
Gideon ended up representing himself during trial because he could not afford an attorney. He asked the judge to appoint counsel for him, but at the time, Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for those accused of committing capital offenses. A jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years behind bars.
0コメント