 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SYLLABUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNSEL SUPREME COURT CURIAE FRANK ROBERT OREGON FLORIDA PETITIONER APPOINTMENT CONVICTION RICHARD JOHN ALABAMA NBSP NORTH CAROLINA DAKOTA THORNTON GIDEON WAINWRIGHT INDIGENT DEFENDANTS ABE RALPH AMICI CURIAE EVANS GEORGE AMICUS CURIAE MINNESOTA DUKE DUNBAR |
U U.S. Supreme Court GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 372 U.S. 335 GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. 155. Argued January 15, 1963. Decided March 18, 1963. Charged in a Florida State Court with a non-capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him; but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman; but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief. Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 , overruled. Pp. 336-345. Reversed and cause remanded. Abe Fortas, by appointment of the Court, 370 U.S. 932 , argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Abe Krash and Ralph Temple. Bruce R. Jacob, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, and A. G. Spicola, Jr., Assistant Attorney General. J. Lee Rankin, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Norman Dorsen, John Dwight Evans, Jr., Melvin L. Wulf, Richard J.SNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNSEL JUSTICE DEFENDANTS OPINION APPOINT COUNSEL AMENDMENT LAW BETTS SUPREME COURT GIDEON FLORIDA LAWYER CONSTITUTION RIGHTS FUNDAMENTALNATURE JUSTICE BLACK PETITIONER APPOINTMENT SAFEGUARDS NONCAPITALOFFENSE ASSISTANCE WAINWRIGHT CERTIORARI OFFENSE ISA FELONY APPOINTED COUNSEL OBLIGATORY GUARANTEE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUSTICE HARLAN |
U U.S. Supreme Court GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 372 U.S. 335 GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. 155. Argued January 15, 1963. Decided March 18, 1963. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was charged in a Florida th intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense isa felony under Florida law. Appearing in court he court to appoint counsel for him,whereupon the following colloquy took place: 'The COURT: torepresent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, theonly time the Court can person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I willhave to deny your request to FENDANT: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to berepresented by Counsel.' Put e about as wellas could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to thejury, in hisown defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument'emphasizing his innocence this case.' The jury returned a verdict of guilty, andpetitioner was sentenced to serve five years Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpuspetitioner attacking his conviction and sentence on the el for him denied him rights'guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the beas corpus asproperly before it, the State Supreme Court, 'upon considerationthereof' but without s v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, was decided by a divided Court, theproblem of a defendant's federal a continuing source of controversy and litigationin both state and federal courts. [FN2] To give ri. 370 U.S. 908. Since Gideon wasproceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent fs and oral arguments thefollowing: 'Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455,be imed that he had been unconstitutionallydenied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him ases his federal constitutionalclaim. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. funds to hire alawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advisedthat it was not ndigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He then pleaded notguilty, had witnesses is own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guiltyby the judge, sitting without a jury, Betts sought release by habeas corpus, allegingthat he had been denied the right to assistance of tts was denied any relief, and on reviewthis Court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint ony did not necessarily violatethe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which for ederal constitutionalprovision. The Court said: 'Asserted denial (of due process) is to betested by ase. Thatwhich may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness,shocking to theSNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
