Right To Legal Counsel Essay, Research Paper

The framers formed this country with one sole document, the

Constitution, which they wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This

bountiful wisdom arose from the unjust treatment of King George to

which the colonists were subject. Among these violations of the

colonists’ rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of

justice. As a result, a fair trial of the accused was a right given to

the citizens along with other equities that the framers instilled in

every other facet of this country?s government. These assurances of

the citizens? rights stated in the bill of rights.

In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, ?In all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the

Assistance of Counsel for his defence.? A first reading of this phrase

one might be think that this right, that which gives a person accused

of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being

that it is among the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the

public. However, the simple manner in which this amendment is phrased

creates a ?gray area?, and subject to interpretation under different

circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legal defense is

further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, ?No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States.? As a result, many

questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true right of the

accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided

by the government if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel

for his defense? Or, on the other hand, does this amendment set the

responsibility of assembling a defensive counsel on the accused even

if he or she lacks the funds to do so?

Also, do the states have the right to make their own

legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have

counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth

Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering

these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

In June of 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon, a fifty year old petty

thief, drifter, and gambler who had spent much of his life in and out

of jail was arrested in Panama City Florida. He was charged with

breaking into a poolroom one night in an effort to steal beer, Coke,

and coins from a cigarette machine (Goodman 62).

From the outset, Gideon insisted that he was innocent. His

trial commenced in a Florida courtroom in August of that year. Gideon

informed the Judge that he was not prepared for the trial to begin

because he had not assembled a legal counsel in his defense. He then

requested that the court appoint counsel to represent him (Goodman

62). The Judge responded with the following statement:

?Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you

in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time

the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a defendant is when that

person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have

to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case?

(372 U.S. 335)

The trial continued, and Gideon directed his defense; but his efforts

were futile as one could expect from a common man with no legal

education or experience. The jury convicted him of the felonious

charges and gave Gideon the maximum five year sentence (Goodman 62).

At the time of Gideon?s trial in the Florida court the right to legal

counsel ensured by the Sixth Amendment was only applicable to federal

cases, and states had the right to handle the matter of the

appointment of legal counsel to the defense in state cases at their

discretion (Asch, 135). This practice was an effect of the outcome of

the United States Supreme Court case of Betts v. Brady decided in

1942. In this case, an unemployed farm worker in Maryland named Smith

Betts was charged with robbery requested that the court appoint

counsel to his defense. The judge denied this request on the grounds

that in that county it was not practice in that county for the court

to appoint counsel to poor defendants only in capital cases. Like

Gideon, Betts conducted his own defense and was convicted and

sentenced to eight years in prison. Betts sent an appeal to the

Supreme Court, but the Court ruled against Betts because, the court?s

opinion was ?in the great majority of states, it has been the

considered judgment of the people, their representatives, and their

courts that the appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right,

essential to a fair trial? (Goodman 64).

With the precedent set by the ruling of Brady v. Betts, the

denial of the appointment of counsel by the trial court in the Gideon

case was issued with just reason. Even though many states and the

federal government allowed for the appointment of counsel for

impoverished defendants, Florida as well as many other southern states

did not (Goodman 62). The only instance in which Counsel could be

appointed to defendants under Florida law was in capital cases, and

thus the reason for the denial of Gideon?s request for Counsel

(Asch 135).

In pursuit of an appeal, Gideon studied law books while

serving out his sentence in state prison. Gideon filed a petition for

habeus corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. This petition sought to

invalidate his conviction and sentence on the basis that the trial

court?s refusal to appoint counsel denied him of rights enumerated in

the Constitution of the United States and the federal government. Upon

consideration of the Florida Supreme Court, but without an opinion,

Gideon?s petition for habeus corpus was denied (372 U.S. 335).

After the Florida Supreme Court ruled against Gideon?s

petition for habeus corpus, Gideon appealed his case to the United

States Supreme Court in forma pauperis, which means that if the case

is approved to be considered the government would provide a lawyer and

all other expenses for the consideration of his case in the Supreme

Court (Wilson 431). The Supreme court selected the case to be

considered.

Gideon presented his case before the Supreme court in January

1963. The basis of the argument was that it was unconstitutional for

the states to create their own state legislation which decides the

circumstances under which the court appoints counsel to the defense,

and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Gideon

argued that these pieces of state legislation are unlawful on the

ground that they abridge the right to have the assistance of counsel

for defense that is given by the Sixth Amendment. This argument was

strongly supported by the Fourteenth Amendment which states ?No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States…? These arguments were

considered before the court in an attempt to earn an appeal, a new

fair trial for Gideon (372 U.S. 335).

The Supreme Court?s decision was made in March. All nine

justices concluded to reverse Gideon?s conviction on the basis that he

was denied due process by reason of the denial of the appointment of

legal counsel to his defense (372 U.S. 335). The unanimous decision

was delivered by Justice Black, who wrote:

“…In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hailed

into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair

trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an

obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly

spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants

accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential

to protect the public?s interest in an orderly society. Similarly

there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to

hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their

defense. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who

have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of

the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities,

not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not

be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries,

but it is in ours. From the 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 crime has

to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him” (372 U.S. 335).

This decision meant that Gideon received a new trial. A trial in which

he had equitable representation by a competent lawyer. In Gideon?s

retrial, his court appointed attorney fulfilled his duties with such

excellence that Gideon was acquitted.

This decision had many profound implications. For starters,

all hundreds of other prisoners who had been convicted without benefit

of defense counsel won their release Florida jails, as well as the

jails of other states (Goodman 66). This may be disconcerting because

some of these prisoners may have been guilty of their crimes or

hardened by prison, and these prisoners are being casually released

into society. The State of Florida should have retried these prisoners

instead of releasing them. However, the retrial process brings up

another question – If a prisoner had a trial but was denied legal

counsel, does it violate the section of the Fifth Amendment, which

states that, ?Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to

be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.? The Fifth Amendment

guarantees the right of a person who is acquitted to not be tried

again for the same crime. Since the prosecutor cannot appeal like a

convict can, or try these prisoners again in a new equitable and

legitimate trial, does it mean that these freed prisoners will not be

retried?

That is not all the decision accomplished, however. The most

important implication set fort in this trial is the further proof of

the legitimacy of the dominance of the federal government over the

states. The power of the Federal government has grown since the Civil

War, in which legitimacy of the federal government was firmly

established. The southern states felt that the true power was invested

in the state, and that their secession was justified. After the defeat

of these secessionist states, the legitimacy of the Federal government

was established, and has grown since that time. The marker of

this is the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the states from

enacting and enforcing any law which abridges the rights of the

citizens set forth by the Bill of Rights. This theme fits the Gideon

case because the ruling meant that the states must give the Sixth

Amendment guarantee to the defendant who is accused of violating a

state law. This means that the state no longer has the power of

discretion in the execution of its own laws. However, in this case,

the dominance of the federal government is all necessary and proper in

order to create unity in the ensure that the rights of the citizens

set forth by the constitution are not infringed by the state.

—

Works Cited

Goodman, Elaine and Walter. The Rights of the People. Toronto:

Doubleday, 1971.

Asch, Sindey H. Civil Rights and Responsibilites under the

Constitution. New York: Arco Publishing Company, 1968.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Wilson, James, and John J. DiIulio, Jr. American Government,

institutions and Policies. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and

Company, 1995.

Works used in the assesment of relative information:

Justice Under Law: the Gideon Case. Videocassette. Encyclopedia

Britanica Educational Corporation, 1967.

Barker, Lucius, and Twiley Barker, Jr. Civil Liberties and the

Constitution. New Jersey: Prentince Hall, 1990.