Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Analysis

“I’m taking this all the way to the Supreme Court!” In the United States if a defendant feels as though they did not receive a fair trial the court system allows the offended to appeal to a higher court. Likewise, if the next court’s decision is unsatisfactory the defendant can continue to appeal to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. However, the Supreme Court is a vastly different courtroom than a trial court. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright highlights the differences between the Supreme Court and Trial Courts.
Trial or District courts deal with the actual trying of the case. Gideon v. Wainwright begins with a poor man named Clarence Earl Gideon, accused of breaking and entering a poolroom in

illiteracy, mental illness etc. These circumstances, outlined in an earlier supreme court case Betts v. Brady, stated the state was not required to appoint counsel to the defendant. Unless there were special circumstances or it is a capital offense. Fortunately for Gideon after he appealed to the Supreme Court through a Writ of Habeas Corpus with a petition for Certiorari, a higher court reviews the decision of a lower one. This ruling overturned and today all defendants are granted counsel in all cases except for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets. Afterward, the court granted Gideon a new trial as a result of its

Lawyers presenting their arguments face the nine Justices are given a limited amount of time to present, however, justices may interrupt with questions. Abe Fortas, selected to represent Gideon, masterfully answered the justices questions while presenting the important points of his case.
After the oral presentation, the justices confer in private discussion and select a judge to write the opinion of the court. For Gideon v. Wainwright Justice Black wrote the opinion and presented the court’s decision to overrule Betts v. Brady, a case he’d dissented on twenty years earlier.
As aforementioned, the Supreme court’s decision to overrule Betts v. Brady resulted in a new trial for Gideon. The Supreme Court made a wise choice in overruling the Betts v. Brady decision, on account of it being too vague, would create more expensive problems in the future and a fair trial cannot be held if a defendant lacks counsel.
The Betts v Brady over the years gain the special circumstances factors including youth, illiteracy, ignorance, mental illness, complex charges or judge and prosecutor behavior at the trial. This left the limitations open to interpretation by the state, this decision to leave flexibility appears to attempt to preserve state power on the issue. However, 25 states sent amici curiae briefs in support of Gideon’s right to counsel