Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is an important case in the history of the United States Supreme Court. In it, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution to provide lawyers to defendants in criminal cases that are unable to pay their own lawyers. This case extends the right to counsel, which has been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose conditions on the federal government, by enforcing such terms also to the state.
Video Gideon v. Wainwright
Previous facts and history
Between midnight and 8:00 am on June 3, 1961, a robbery took place at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. An unknown person broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and record player, and stole money from a cash register. Later that day, a witness reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the pool room around 5:30 that morning, leaving a bottle of wine and money in his pocket. On the basis of these allegations, the police arrested Gideon and accused him of infringing and entering with the intent to commit a petty theft.
Gideon appeared in court alone because he was too poor to get advice, where the following conversations took place:
The COURT: Gideon, I'm sorry, but I can not appoint a counselor to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time a court can appoint an advisor to represent a defendant is when the person is charged with a serious offense. I'm sorry, but I have to refuse your request to appoint a lawyer to defend you in this case.
GIDEON: The US Supreme Court said I was entitled to be represented by a lawyer.
The Florida court refused to appoint a lawyer for Gideon. As a result, he was forced to act as his own counsel and defend himself in court, stressing that he was innocent in the case. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Gideon to a five-year sentence in state prison.
From a cell in the Florida State Prison, using a prison library and writing pencils on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the United States Supreme Court in a lawsuit against Florida Corruption Department Secretary H.G. Cochran. Cochran then retired and was replaced by Louie L. Wainwright before the case was heard by the Supreme Court. Gideon argued in his call that he had been denied advice and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to countries by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
The Supreme Court commissioned Gideon, Washington's leading lawyer, D.C., the future of the supreme court, Abe Fortas of the law firm of Arnold, Fortas & amp; Porter. Opposing, Bruce Jacob, who later became Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Mercer and Dean of the Law School of Stetson, argued the case for the State of Florida. Fortas assisted by Arnold, Fortas & amp; Porter partnered with Abe Krash and renowned legal scholar John Hart Ely, then a third-year student at Yale Law School.
During the oral argument before the Supreme Court, Fortas repeatedly mentioned that the existing framework for state courts to appoint lawyers is unworkable. Under the existing framework, a judge in the preliminary hearing decides whether there is a "special circumstance" in the case in favor of that Defendant should receive advice. However, as Mr. emphasized. Fortas, the determination happened too early in this case to be useful. For example, whether witness statements should be prohibited because it is a rumor, is a very complicated problem that can not be faced by ordinary people, and such situations only appear in the middle of the trial.
As a second point, Mr. Fortas presented during his oral argument that it was widely accepted in the legal community, that the first thing a good lawyer does when he is accused of a crime is to hire a lawyer. In giving an example, Fortas presented the judges with the fact that when Clarence Darrow, widely known as the largest criminal lawyer in the United States, was accused of a jury of harm and perjury, the first thing he did was to get a lawyer to represent him. Obviously, as Mr. Fortas advises, if the biggest lawyer in the US needs a lawyer to represent him in criminal proceedings, than a man without any legal education or education requiring a lawyer is the same.
Maps Gideon v. Wainwright
Court decision
The Supreme Court decision was announced on March 18, 1963, and delivered by Judge Hugo Black. The decision was announced unanimously in favor of Gideon. Two concrete opinions were written by Judge Clark and Douglas. The Supreme Court's decision specifically cites the previous ruling in Powell v. Alabama . Is the decision at Powell v. Alabama applied to non-capital cases has sparked a heated debate. Betts v. Brady has previously stated that, unless certain circumstances, such as illiteracy or the foolishness of the defendant, or a very complicated case, are not required by a court-appointed lawyer in a state court. criminal proceedings. Betts has granted a selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to advise the state, depending on circumstances, since the Sixth Amendment is only binding in federal cases. Gideon v. Wainwright refused Betts v. Brady, on the contrary, holds that the counsel of advice, if desired by defendants who are unable to hire lawyers, is a basic right under the United States Constitution, binding on states, and essential to fair trials and fair justice proceedings regardless of case state.
The concurring opinion of Justice Clark states that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution does not distinguish between capital and non-capital cases, so legal counsel should be made available to the indigent defendant in all cases. Opinions agree Justice Harlan states that existence only from serious criminal prosecution itself is a special circumstance requiring advisory services in court.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the Florida Supreme Court because "further action does not conflict with this decision."
Gideon v. Wainwright is one of a series of Supreme Court decisions that affirm the right of defendants in criminal proceedings, upon request, to have a designated counsel both during the trial and at the time of appeal. In subsequent cases Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966), the Supreme Court further extends the rule to force even during police interrogations.
Implications
About 2,000 people were released in Florida alone as a result of Gideon's decision. The decision did not directly result in Gideon's release; instead, he received a new trial by appointing defenders at government expense.
Gideon chose W. Fred Turner to be his lawyer in the second trial. The re-trial was made on 5 August 1963, five months after the Supreme Court ruling. Turner, during the trial, separately chose the testimony of eyewitness Henry Cook, and in his opening and closing remarks suggested that Cook might have searched for a group of young men who entered the pool room to steal beer, then took coins while they were there. Turner also obtained a statement from a taxi driver who had brought Gideon from Bay Harbor to a bar in Panama City, stating that Gideon did not bring wine, beer, or Coke when he picked him up, even though Cook testified that he had watched Gideon. walk from the pool room to the phone and then wait for the taxi. This testimony actually discredits Cook.
The jury freed Gideon after an hour of deliberation. After his release, Gideon continued his previous life and remarried some time later. He died of cancer in Fort Lauderdale on January 18, 1972, at the age of 61. Gideon's family in Missouri received his body and laid him in an unmarked grave. Tombstone granite was added later. It was written with a quote from Gideon's letter writing to Abe Fortas, a lawyer appointed to represent him in the Supreme Court: "Every era finds improvement in the law for the benefit of mankind."
Impact on court
The former "wrong trial" rule, in which the government is given a fair amount of latitude in criminal proceedings as long as there is no "shocking departure from a fair procedure" is disposed of for a firm set of "procedural guarantees" under the Constitution. The court cancels Betts and adopts a rule that does not require case-by-case analysis, but instead specifies the advisory requirements designated as a rights issue, without the defendant having to indicate a "special circumstance" justifying the appointment of a lawyer. In this way, the case helps to improve the stare decisis: when previous appellate decisions have to be enforced and what standards should be applied to test new cases against case precedents to achieve acceptable practices and legal proceedings of the law.
Public Defender
Many changes have been made in the prosecution and legal representation of the defendant poor since the decision of Gideon . Decisions are made and then expand the need for common defenders that were previously rare. For example, soon after that decision, Florida needed a public defender in all state circuit courts. The need for more public defenders also led to the need to ensure that they are well trained in criminal defense to enable defendants to accept as fair justice as possible. Several states and districts followed suit. Washington D.C., for example, has created training programs for their public defenders, who must receive strict training before they are allowed to represent defendants, and must continue their training to stay current in criminal law, procedure and practice. In 2010, a public defender's office in the South Bronx, The Bronx Defenders, created the Holistic Defense Center, which has helped other public defenders offices from Montana to Massachusetts, developed a public defense model called holistic defense or holistic advocacy. In it, criminal defense lawyers work on interdisciplinary teams, along with civil lawyers, social workers, and lawyers to help clients with not only the direct aspects but also the assurance of their criminal cases. Recently, the American Bar Association and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association have established minimum training requirements, caseload levels, and experience requirements for HRDs. There is often controversy about whether the burden of cases imposed on public defenders gives them enough time to defend their clients adequately. Some criticize the mindset in which public defender lawyers encourage their clients to simply plead guilty. Some advocates say this is meant to reduce their own workload, while others will say it is meant to get a lighter penalty by negotiating a plea bargain compared to going to court and may have harsher penalties imposed. Tanya Greene, an ACLU lawyer, said that 90 to 95 percent of the defendants pleaded guilty: "You have many cases, limited resources, and no help, you go to work, you get more cases.
The right to negotiate
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments