Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Civil liberties and rights are an essential part of democracy since they ensure equal and fair opportunities for social interaction and legal protection irrespective of race, gender, or other socioeconomic factors. The discrepancies between the founders ideals and the demands of democratic philosophy are visible regarding civil rights or assurances of equality for people in the United States concerning the advantages of government protection (Greenberg & Page, 2018). Since World War II, the advancement of civil rights safeguards has improved American democracy by making political equality a fact (Greenberg & Page, 2018). The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is substantially related to the question of civil rights and the need to provide citizens with equal rights in terms of protection and representation.
Clarence Earl Gideon, who was charged with perjury for reportedly trying to rob a pool club in Panama City, Florida, in June 1961, was at the center of the case. He demanded and was refused a court-appointed attorney at his first trial. Gideon interrogated witnesses but could not cast doubt on their veracity or bring up inconsistencies in their testimonies. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years in jail. Thus, this is a short case retrospective, essential for the following analysis of more detailed information.
Facts of the Case
In the instance of Gideon v. Wainwright, the United States Supreme Court held on March 18, 1963, that jurisdiction must give legal assistance to destitute defendants accused of a crime. Clarence Earl Gideon, who was criminally charged for reportedly burglarizing a pool club in Panama City, Florida, in June 1961, was at the center of the case. He demanded and was refused a court-appointed lawyer at his first hearing. Authorities presented witnesses who noticed Gideon at the moment of the break-in beyond the pool hall, but no one noticed him do the crime. Gideon interrogated witnesses but could not cast doubt on their veracity or discuss inconsistencies in their testimonies. He was convicted by a jury and condemned to five years in jail.
Gideon was an eighth-grader who left the family while in primary school and never returned. Coming and entering to execute a misdemeanor that is a crime in Florida was filed against him. He faced charges without an attorney or official representation during the trial and begged the court to assist him since he could not afford a lawyer. The sentencing judge dismissed Gideons motion since Florida law only allowed indigent individuals accused of death charges to be appointed counsel. Courts, outlaws, and statutes have recognized and accepted the right to assigned counsel in most situations where a jail or prison term is imposed (Bunin, 2022). Gideon claimed protection from imprisonment by petitioning the Florida Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order. As a result, he has initiated an appeal that serves as an integral part of the analysis in this presentation.
History of the Case
The institute of free legal aid as one of the types of social support for low-income and unprotected categories of citizens has deep historical roots. The moment of the birth of free jurisprudence in the United States is considered to be the outcome of the Gideon case. Already in one of the first normative acts of American law, the institution of judicial representation for the sick and the poor arose. However, the lawyers provided by the state left a negative impression, since they were completely dependent on the judges and practically had no rights, and they performed the law enforcement function formally (Backus & Marcus, 2018). However, in the legislative acts adopted subsequently after the Gideon case, the institute of hired lawyers is already mentioned as existing.
Thus, after the decision in the Gideon case, free law is transformed from a free profession that does not have a clear organization into a human rights institution. It begins to be built on the principles of relative independence and self-management, corporatism, and the presence of disciplinary responsibility (The bill of rights, n.d.). Sworn attorneys have an obligation to provide legal assistance to the poorest strata (Bunin, 2022). The conduct of civil cases of persons obtaining the right of poverty was mandatory the lawyer could not refuse to execute the assignment given to him, regardless of the additional circumstances of the case.
Legal Questions
In its 1963 decision in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that low-income defendants are entitled to state-paid protection. However, according to the legislation in force at that time, the court was obliged to reject the application for judicial protection. At the time of filing the claim Gideon, the individuals right to judicial protection in the person of a lawyer existed only in cases involving serious crimes punishable by death (Bunin, 2022). Therefore, the judge initially rejected Gideons request for a lawyer and sentenced him to five years in prison as a result of court hearings.
While in prison, Gideon filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. He insisted on issuing a court order to transfer the arrested person to a higher court. As a basis, he used the fact that he was not provided with a lawyer, and therefore he was wrongfully sentenced to prison. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the decision made earlier by the District Court and rejected Gideons appeal (Greenberg & Page, 2018). In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Florida courts decision (Backus & Marcus, 2018). Thus, the principle was approved that state courts are obliged to provide defendants in criminal cases with judicial protection in the presence of a lawyer. An alternative course of events would have included obeying the current rule and rejecting Gideons claim since he was not sentenced to death.
Decision or Holdings
Gideons appeal argued that the court judges failure to assign an attorney infringed on his constitutionally protected rights and that his guilt and imprisonment should be overturned. Gideons Florida Supreme Court refused Gideons request due to the legislation in Florida. Gideon submitted a handwritten complaint to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to review the case to determine whether the ability to counsel granted by the Sixth Amendment pertains to defendants in state jurisdiction. It is feasible to emphasize lower courts, such as the Bay County Circuit Court and the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Bunin, 2022). Gideons plea for a court-appointed counsel was refused by the judge in the case since, according to Florida law, representation could only be provided for a poor person charged with a deadly felony. All remedy was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court, which concurred with the lower court.
The court previously concluded that the failure to select counsel for an impoverished individual charged with a crime in state court did not always contradict the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause (Greenberg & Page, 2018). Gideons application for a writ of certiorari was approved, and the court decided to review his case and examine the lower courts ruling. With its demand that indigent criminal defendants, be allowed government-funded legal assistance and representation, Gideon v. Wainwright transformed the outlook of criminal justice substantially in 1963 (Backus & Marcus, 2018). At the same time, states have usually failed to deliver the equitable access Gideon pledged, as academics and practitioners have highlighted frequently over the last fifty years (Backus & Marcus, 2018). The court determined that the Sixth Amendments ability to an attorney is a fundamental right necessary for a jury process and, as such, extends to states under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause.
Understanding the Ruling
At the time of the decision, the US Constitution guaranteed the right of a citizen to use the free assistance of a qualified lawyer in cases provided for by Law. Such a case was a sentence to death for a serious criminal offense. According to the constitutional provision, everyone is guaranteed the right to receive qualified legal assistance. However, not every citizen could afford such assistance, since it was quite expensive. Therefore, not everyone could exercise the right to a lawyer, which contradicted the rule of equality enshrined in the Constitution (Bunin, 2022).
This constitutional right must be strictly observed by all representatives of state bodies, but the law in force at the time of the Gideon case did not allow this. These constitutional provisions on equality have a direct effect and are mandatory for everyone (Backus & Marcus, 2018). Therefore, the basic law of the State should not restrict the right to professional protection and the participation of a lawyer in any way. Accordingly, any person at any time should have the right and opportunity to use the legal assistance of a lawyer.
The right to qualified legal assistance (the right to a lawyer) is provided not only by national legislation. It is also enshrined in international documents that have been ratified by the United States. In particular, the right to a lawyer as part of the general right to a fair trial is provided for by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Greenberg & Page, 2018). It states that everyone has the right to defend themselves personally or through a defender of ones own choosing. If there are no funds for a defender, the Convention provides for the possibility to use the services of an appointed defender free of charge, if the interests of justice require it.
Conclusion and Verdict: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
Regarding the verdict, it is possible to highlight social repercussions for the American community, according to the information presented during this presentation. It became evident that all people, regardless of socioeconomic position or other social variables, should be able to obtain protection due to fundamental civic rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled as a consequence of the judgment that those suspected of wrongdoing have a right to due process and representation, mainly if they cannot hire one (The bill of rights, n.d.).
That incident, which originated in Florida, changed the face of criminal legislation in the United States of America in a positive way, aiming toward human rights rhetoric. People, irrespective of their social status, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic and other factors, should have the ability to request attorneys in case there is no opportunity to hire a personal one.
References
Backus, M. S., & Marcus, P. (2018). The right to counsel in criminal cases: Still a national crisis? The George Washington Law Review, 86, 1564.
Bunin, A. (2022). Seeking public defender autonomy. Criminal Justice, 36(4), 23-27.
Greenberg, E. S., & Page, B. I. (2018). The Struggle for Democracy. Pearson Education.
The bill of rights (n.d.). [Video file]. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.