U.S. Supreme Court review of Gideon v. Wainwright Essay

U.S. arrogant Court follow of Gideon v. Wainw decent - Essay ExampleNo history of the right to apprise could be complete without a discussion of Gideon v. Wainwright - one of the best-known and near significant right to counsel decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. The Warren Courts landmark 1963 opinion in Gideon revisited the issue confronted twenty geezerhood earlier in Betts v. Brady - the area of an indigent defendants constitutional entitlement to government-provided care in state court. The Gideon Courts straightforward, unanimous holding constituted the last major(ip) step in the historical expansion of the constitutional right to counsel in America. Its forceful ratiocination elevated the status of the right to counsel to new heights, giving it an honored place as the most central of all rights guaranteed to the accused.Mr. Gideon was charged with the crime of breaking and penetrating a poolroom with the aim to commit a misde lowlyor. He appeared in court without an attorney. Because he could not afford to have a lawyer, he claimed that the mark appoint counsel. The judge did not accept the request, informing him that Florida law permitted appointed counsel alone in capital cases. In the trial that followed, Gideon made an opening statement, cross-examined government witnesses, called his own witnesses, declined to testify, and made a wretched closing argument. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to five years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. To reconsider the issue resolved in Betts v. Brady, the Supreme Court granted review. The Court first observed that the facts of Betts and Gideon were so similar that the holding of Betts, if still good law, would require rejection of Gideons statement that he had a due process entitlement to appointed counsel. The Court then declared, however, that after reconsidering the Betts holding, it had decided that it should be overruled. Acco rding to the Gideon Court, the fundamental nature of the right to counsel had been established in Powell v. Alabama - ten years before Betts was decided. Although the Powell Court had limited its holding to the particular circumstances of the case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel were unmistakable (cited in Van Gerven 97). Moreover, in subsequent cases, including Johnson v. Zerbst, the Court had made it clear that the assistance of counsel was necessary to insure basic human rights of life and liberty. By failing to acknowledge that the assistance of counsel is always essential for a fair trial and concluding that the appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, the Courts opinion in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its well-considered precedents (ibid.). In so doing, it had erred. Precedent was not the only reason to declare Betts misguided. Reason and reflection also led to the obvious truth that in our adversary organization of wicked justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him (cited in Garcia 70). After all, the government deems it essential to have lawyers prosecute criminal cases, and few criminal defendants who can afford them fail to hire the best lawyers they can get. These are strong indicationsat lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. From the start, American law has put great emphasis on adjectival and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands adequate before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to exhibit his accusers without a lawyer to assist him (cited in Alfieri 1459). As the Powell Court had observed, the right to be heard would mean little if it did not include the right to be heard through counsel. Even intelligent laypersons lack the legal skill and kno wledge required to adequately defend against accusations. Although they may in fact be innocent, they