SCOTUS: Right to an Attorney (Gideon v. Wainwright)

The right to an attorney when charged with a crime is laid out in the Sixth Amendment, and is widely known today that those unable to afford an attorney must receive one provided by the state to represent themselves in court. However, this was not always the case. Such precedent was only established in the landmark Supreme Court decision of Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.

On June 3, 1961, between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m., a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Fla. An unknown individual, broke a door, stole money from the cash register, and destroyed a cigarette machine and record player. A witness reported seeing a man named Clarence E. Gideon at around 5:30 a.m. in the poolroom that morning and left with a wine bottle and pockets stuffed with cash. Gideon, a homeless man who was in and out of prison for nonviolent offenses, was apprehended and arrested by police and charged with petty larceny.

Unfortunately for Gideon, he was broke and had no money, and so was unable to afford an attorney to represent him in a Florida state court. He requested that under the Sixth Amendment, which stated that accused people should “have the assistance of counsel for his defense,” he should be granted an attorney paid for by the state of Florida. However, the court refused his request, because there was a Florida state law that barred courts from appointing lawyers to represent defendants unless they were charged with a capital offense (an offense serious enough to potentially invoke the death penalty).

Thus, Gideon had to represent himself in court without the assistance of a lawyer, and predictably, he was found guilty of his charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

While serving in a Florida state prison, Gideon studied the legal system and determined that his Sixth Amendment right to a counsel had been denied by the Florida court. He petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to hear his case, but Gideon’s petition was denied by the court. Later, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court suing the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, a man named H. G. Cochran but was later replaced by Louie Wainwright before the case was heard. In his petition, Gideon claimed that since he had been denied access to an attorney, his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. And since the precedents laid out in the Constitution’s supremacy clause required federal laws to take precedent over state clause, by denying Gideon a counsel, his rights had been violated.

The court decided to grant Gideon’s petition and chose to hear the case. The Supreme Court appointed Abe Fortas, a well-known attorney and future Supreme Court justice, to represent Gideon in his case. Oral arguments were heard on Jan. 15, 1963, and the question asked was whether the right to a counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment applied to defendants in state court.

It is important to note that a prior Supreme Court decision, Betts v. Brady (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel to a defendant in a state court did not violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Fortas argued that many issues in court were too complicated for regular people to deal with, such as whether or not a witness’s statement was hearsay. In addition, Fortas argued that even reputable lawyers hired an attorney to represent themselves in court, and so it would be inappropriate that a person without the necessary education represent themselves in court.

The court announced its decision on March 18, 1963. It had sided unanimously (9-0) with Gideon, overturning Betts v. Brady and requiring that all people be appointed a counsel to represent them in court in the event that they could not afford one. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote:

“[L]awyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with a crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with a crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”

In other words, the justices wrote, without a lawyer representing the accused in court, a fair and just trial cannot be guaranteed since he or she “lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare for his defense.”

This case was later strengthened by the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established the well-known “Miranda warning” and extended the requirement that accused people be accompanied by lawyers to include interrogations as well.

The result of Gideon v. Wainwright resulted in about 2,000 people freed from prison in Florida. Though the case did not immediately free Gideon, he was retried five months after the Supreme Court ruling and was represented by a lawyer appointed by the court. He was acquitted after just one hour of argument, freeing him.

Gideon lived an uneventful life and died in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., of cancer at the age of 61 on Jan. 18, 1972.

Gideon v. Wainwright continues to remain an important decision guaranteeing people accused of a crime the right to a lawyer to represent them in court, and strengthens the Bill of Right’s protections to people accused of crimes.