Clarence Gideon was arrested for breaking into a pool room. He was accused of stealing a bottle of wine and a small bit of money. He was poor, and when he was asked for a court appointed attorney, the judge refused. Gideon represented himself but was found guilty. While in prison he petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. The court agreed. Should the Supreme Court overturn his conviction? Explain your answer.
2007-02-11 12:00:14 · 9 answers · asked by me 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The court did overturn his conviction, the state of Florida retried him and was found not guilty. This 1963 ruling necessitated the need for court appointed counsel in all trials.
2007-02-11 12:26:55 · answer #1 · answered by xtowgrunt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok, assuming that he was questioned without someone reading him his Miranda warning then the confession is inadmissible. In other words, the court can toss out the confession. That doesn't mean that the suspect is free to go. Other evidence gained through other means can still be presented and if that evidence is strong enough to gain a conviction then the person may still be convicted and sentenced. If the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case and does find that the confession was gained improperly then there are several options they may take. If the totality of the other evidence would reasonably lead to a conviction then they can let the judgment stand. If there is some question then the conviction may be over turned, the confession excluded and the case remanded back to a lower court. Once remanded, if the prosecutor still fills that the remaining evidence is strong enough then the subject can be tried again. If the prosecutor still doesn't feel that the available evidence is strong enough then he or she may drop the case. The Miranda warning only pertains to interrogation when a person has been seized; meaning that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. This could be an arrest or an interview where the average person may not reasonably feel free to leave even though they are not under arrest. It does not pertain to the gathering of other evidence unless this evidence is only discoverable through the confession. If it could reasonably be discovered through other investigatory means, even if it wasn't, then it can still be admitted.
2016-03-29 02:44:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was the famous case of Gideon versus Wainright, the 1963 US Supreme Court case that established the right of any criminal defendant to have a lawyer appointed for him if he could not afford to pay one. The court held that if a poor man was denied a right to counsel because he was poor, it was a denial of the right to a fair trial and a denial of due process. Since then, all states have to provide an attorney to any criminal defendant facing serious crime charges.
Incidentally, Gideon was given a new trial, and at that trial, was represented by an attorney. He was found not guilty.
Go to your local library, and read a wonderful book "Gideon's Trumpet" by Anthony Lewis, about the case.
2007-02-11 20:43:01 · answer #3 · answered by JOHN B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was the first of three cases that led to what is commonly known as "Miranda Rights." They are in this order:
#1 Gideon v Wainwright
#2 Escobedo v Illinois
#3 Miranda v Arizona
2007-02-11 12:13:42 · answer #4 · answered by DAKal 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in the miranda rights it states: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
2007-02-11 12:07:58 · answer #5 · answered by tracymartensen 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about the judge denying him a court appointed lawyer... that sounds like a grey area to me.
I'd say that he will get a second shot. He's still a criminal though. How long did they sentence him for? A simple b&e and some theft, he wouldn't be in jail long eneough for the courts to even decide if he should be heard!
2007-02-11 12:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
all of it is procedural and is not based on what is right or wrong. They will basically look up what the rules force them to do. You cant get a court appointed attorney for traffic tickets right??
2007-02-11 12:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems he was denied his rights. If this is true, then yes, the case should be looked in to.
2007-02-11 12:03:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY'S FEES...NOT BAD FOR A BOTTLE OF VINO...WOO HOO...
2007-02-11 12:05:21 · answer #9 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋