Gideon Vs. Wainwright : Poor Criminal Defendants Have To Provided Attorney Free Of Cost

In Gideon Vs. Wainright (1963) , the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants who are unable to defend themselves due to financial constraints have to be provided attorneys free of cost.

What were facts of Gideon Vs Wainwright ?

A burglary had been committed in Panama City Florida wherein a door was broken, cigarette machine and record players were smashed and some money was stolen. Gideon has been arrested by Police. Gideon appeared in Court alone without any counsel. Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer. Gideon requested the Judge for appointment of legal counsel which was refused on the ground that only in case of capital punishment legal counsel can be appointed under laws of Florida. Gideon defended in person before the Trial Court and was convicted. Gideon filed petition for writ of habeus corpus before the Supreme Court of Florida which was refused. Gideon from his cell at Florida State Prison appealed to the Federal Supreme Court in pencil on Prison Stationary.

What were findings of the Supreme Court in Gideon Vs Wainwright ?

Gideon appealed on the ground that denial of counsel was in violation of Sixth Amendment rights which had been made applicable to States vide Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon. The Court held that lawyers in criminal trials are necessities and not luxuries. Nobel ideal of the Constitution cannot be achieved if poor man faces trial without assistance of a lawyer.

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 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 crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant’s need for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell Vs. Alabama “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence”.

Gideon Vs Wainwright

It was observed by the Supreme Court that Sixth Amendment does not differentiate between capital cases and non-capital cases as such legal counsel has to be provided to indigent persons in all cases. Existence of criminal charge itself is a special circumstance requiring services of a Counsel. Retrial of case of Gideon was conducted wherein he was acquitted. Many other convictions were set aside after this judgment.

_______________________________________