Judicial Process POSC 340

February 13, 2013

Gideon’s Trumpet
Gideon simply stated to the Supreme Court that his rights to a fair trial were denied according to the Six Amendment of the United Stated Constitution. Gideon contends since the state of Florida refused his request for a lawyer, his conviction was unconstitutional. Gideon petition to the Supreme Court made the court recognized that it have to protect the rights of the people in accordance to the Constitution. Who will protect the rights of the people if the states fail to uphold these basic rights of our forefathers? Gideon did not have a lawyer to represent him, but the state did. It was questioned, how is this fair. A simple man does not know the letters of the law. Even if he is a learned man, he does not have the full knowledge of the laws nor is skilled in using the law to defend himself, therefore cannot represent himself to the fullest. The Supreme Court questioned if the state hires lawyers to prosecute the defendant and uses all the state’s resources to get a conviction, how can that be called a fair trial if the defendant was denied or cannot afford a lawyer. The Supreme concluded that in order to receive a fair trial, a lawyer is necessary and if the defendant cannot afford to get a lawyer the state should provide one.
The right to counsel should be provided to from the first arraignment, through the trial and appeal for both felonies and misdemeanors. The Constitution declares that an accused has the right to face his accuser on equal footing before the law. The defendant has a right to counsel because according to the Six Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (del Carmen, 2010, p 514). Gideon was poor and could not afford a lawyer, at his request the state should have provided one for him according to his constitutional rights, the state law enabled to help the state court to refuse Gideon request but cause he did not fall under the special circumstance that requires the court to provider the defendant with a lawyer.
The Supreme Court gave the State of Florida an opportunity to address its ruling on Gideon’s case. Both the federal court and state court attorneys used the Betts v. Brady case to justify their argument on the Gideon case. Betts v. Brady was a prior case that the Supreme Court heard and its ruling set the precedents for all state’s court system. The Betts case express the feeling at that time, that the states had the rights to decide whether the defendant should have a right to counsel and the Supreme Court should not imposed that requirement on the states. For 20 years the state courts used this ruling on certain criteria, such as a capital offense or special circumstances, for example the defendant is illiterate, which allows the state to provide counsel for the defendant. The Supreme Court now realized that the Betts v. Brady was not working, and that the Supreme Court itself have overturn some of Florida’s court sentences because the state court failed to upheld the accused right to counsel when it was plain to see they meet certain special circumstances as stated in the Betts v. Brady case. A simple man has a right to counsel in every case not just the special circumstance cases.