Md. Musa Shifullah
Professor Porter
Introduction to legal process
Course code-126

Mandatory Response paper (two) about the Supreme Court case decision for
Gideon v. Wainwright
The plaintiff Gideon been accused by the State Court of Florida for committing felony. The hearings commenced, and Gideon requested for a defense lawyer to be appointed by the State of Florida, on account of the law that he has the right to get state-appointed counsel as he is indigent. However, this request had been declined by the state Court, as they said that indigent defendants have the right to appointed counsels only when they have been accused of a capital offense. It was held that the right to be represented by a counsel was a right fundamental to having a …show more content…
Its application on States has been made mandatory as per the Due Process Clause introduced into the Constitution by the Fourteenth Amendment. The question of the precedent being set by the decision given in Betts v. Brady was thus overturned, and it was stated by Justice Black that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him” (Young, 1997). It was further specified by him that an ideal fair trial would be one in front of unbiased judges in which a fair treatment would be provided to the defendant. However this fair trial may not be achieved if the individual who has been accused of the crime is to be brought in front of the plaintiff without having a lawyer to represent him, one who knows the procedural principles of court hearings. The decision was a unanimous one and there existed no dissenting …show more content…
Constitution imposes a due process requirement on states to fulfill defendant’s right to counsel, it also sparked the discussion of the judgment given in the case of Betts v. Brady. It held that the clauses stated in the Bill of Rights have made it mandatory for states to follow them. It had been accepted by the Supreme Court that the decision delivered in Betts v. Brady was based on an assumption.

In my opinion I will say that, I am not disagree with their decision but I would like to say that before placing any decision/rules against any issue Supreme Court should follow all the amendment and rules of Constitution.

However, in delivering the decision for Gideon, the Court diverged from Betts and concluded that the right to be represented by a counsel was a fundamental right. The decision delivered in Betts had therefore been reversed on account of abrupt turn from precedent. It was further justified by the Supreme Court that if a counsel is not provided to the defendant then the due process right of being heard at a fair trial would also be rendered meaningless (Dick, 1988).

Source
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335