United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments. GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT In June 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering in Bay Harbor. He was tried in a Florida Circuit Court in August 1961. Gideon stated in Court that he was unable to afford a lawyer and asked the Judge to appoint one for him.
The Judge said he was sorry but he could not do that, because the laws of Florida called for appointment of counsel only when a defendant was charged with a capital offense [where the death penalty might be imposed]. When the Florida courts denied his claim, he went to the Supreme Court. In his prison he submitted a petition, handwritten in pencil, arguing that Florida had ignored a rule laid down by the Supreme Court: ” that all citizens tried for a felony crime should have aid of counsel.” Oral arguments were heard on January 15, 1962 and the decision was announced on March 18, 1963. However, Gideon was wrong. The rule applied by the Supreme Court at that time was in fact exactly the opposite.
The Constitution, it had held, did not guarantee free counsel to all felony defendants that are unable to retain their own. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady was decided by a divided Court, the problem of defendant’s federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. Since Gideon was proceeding without funds, it gave the Justice a chance to think about the constitution. He appointed a counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments. Should this Court’s holding in Betts v.
... Amendment. In Federal Court, counsel must be appointed to an indigent defendant unless otherwise waived. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief. The United States Supreme Court (USSC) granted ... guilty. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. Gideon then filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition (A judicial mandate ...
Brady be reconsidered?” PRECEDENTS The Supreme Court first dealt with the issue in 1932, in the Scottsboro Case, POWELL v. ALABAMA. DUE PROCESS OF LAW required al least a “hearing,” Justice GEORGE H. SUTHERLAND said, and the presence of the counsel was “fundamental” to a meaningful hearing. However, Sutherland said that the Court was not deciding whether poor defendants had a right to free counsel in all situations, beyond the aggravated ones of this case: a capital charge, tried in haste and under public pressure. In JOHNSON v.
ZERBST (1928) the court read the 6 th Amendment to require the appointment of counsel for all indigent federal criminal defendants. Betts v. Brady (1942) The facts on which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are similar to the facts on Gideon. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him.
Betts was advised that is was not the practice in the county for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He was founded guilty by the judge, sitting without jury, and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Betts argued that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violations of the 14 th Amendments. Betts was denied any relief, and on review this Court let the lower court-ruling stand. But during the period criticism of the case mounted. More and more often, too, the Supreme Court found “special circumstances” to require counsel.
So when Clarence Earl Gideon’s petition reached the Court. The Justice seized this chance to think about the Constitution and the right to counsel. Granting review, the Court ordered counsel to discuss: “should this Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?” Then the Court appointed to represent Gideon, who had had no lawyer at his trial, one of the best lawyers in Washington, ABE FOR TAS. On March 18, 1963, the Court overruled Betts v. Brady.
According to the Melissa’s case, her supervisor told her not to rush callers and she has to complete at least 5 calls per hour because of the volume of calls that typically comes in and the limited staff available. It means that she can only have maximum 12 minutes for each call to success. Maximum 12 minutes per call defeats the purpose of not rushing the caller. In addition she cannot always ...
Justice HUGO L. BLACK, who had dissented in Betts, wrote the opinion of the Court: a rare vindication of past dissent.