The Law Office of John W. Noonan
925-400-6635 Call For A Free Initial Consultation Se Habla EspaƱol Available 24/7

How did Gideon v. Wainwright impact the criminal justice system?

As many of our California readers already know, you are afforded a number of rights under the U.S. Constitution. One of these rights is the right to court-appointed counsel which is afforded to you by the Sixth Amendment in federal prosecutions and extended to state trials under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It's a right we now take for granted here in the United States and one few people can imagine absent from criminal law. But did you know that prior to 1963, the right to a public defender wasn't applied in to every criminal trial? It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Gideon v. Wainwright that things changed.

So how did Gideon v. Wainwright impact the criminal justice system? Well, the case asked the Supreme Court an important question: was the Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed legal counsel in federal prosecutions made obligatory upon state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, did the state courts have to follow the same "right to counsel" rule that the federal courts had to abide by? Here's how the Supreme Court answered this question:

The Supreme Court first had to look back at another case it had already decided on that raised the exact same question. In Betts v. Brady, the high court denied relief to the defendant, ruling that the refusal to appoint him counsel was not a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

The Court agreed that if it applied Betts v. Brady to Gideon v. Wainwright, it would have to rule similarly because the cases were "nearly indistinguishable." Instead, the court reconsidered the nature of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and concluded that by denying court-appointed counsel, the state courts were effectively denying a defendant the right to a fair trial.

This decision, which was made on March 18, 1963, had a huge impact on the criminal justice system because it required state courts to follow the same "right to counsel" rule federal courts had to follow. From that point on, a person with no legal background was no longer forced to defend themselves against crimes the state courts deem unworthy of court-appointed counsel, potentially putting their freedom in jeopardy because of their lack of understanding of the law.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Recent Case Results

  • Juvenile Charges

    A juvenile was arrested for 2nd Degree Robbery. After 6 months the case was dismissed.

    A juvenile was arrested for Sexual Battery. After 6 months and 80 hours of Community service, the case was dismissed.

    Read More
  • Drunk Driving Offenses

    A client with a 1st DUI arrest. Fearing she would go to jail; lose her license for a year and lose her job. Got a wet reckless and minimal fines.

    Read More
  • Drug Charges

    A client with 4 Felony charges on a Transportation Charge, a Attempt to Sell, Possession of Marijuana, (50 pounds), Conspiracy Charge all where reduced to 1 Misdemeanor. No Jail.

    Client was charged with 6 Felony drug possessions. Facing jail time. The results: Client got a deferred entry of judgment and then dismissed.

    Client charged with several felony counts of possession of Marijuana with intent to sell. Client was involved in a medical marijuana grow. Case was reduced and later dismissed.

    Read More
  • Sex Crimes

    A client with alleged 2 Felony Sex charges and he faced jail and sex registration. The case was entirely dismissed.

    Client charged with prostitution; facing jail time and sex offender registration. Result: NO JAIL TIME AND NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION Deferred Entry of Judgment.

    Read More
  • Domestic Violence

    Client charged with domestic violence, with great bodily injury. Case reduced to a misdemeanor with time served.

    Read More
Email Us For A Response

Learn How We Can Help

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Areas We Serve

Pleasanton Office
5674 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 204
Pleasanton, CA 94588

Toll Free: 800-785-9556
Phone: 925-400-6635
Fax: 925-463-3661
Pleasanton Law Office Map

Manteca Office
210 East Center Street
Suite 10
Manteca, CA 95336

Toll Free: 800-785-9556
Phone: 925-400-6635
Fax: 925-463-3661
Manteca Law Office Map

Back To Top