!-- Google Tag Manager (noscript) -->

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Read a random definition: droit d'auteur

A quick definition of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):

Gideon v. Wainwright was a court case in the United States that said everyone, even people who can't afford a lawyer, have the right to a lawyer in criminal cases. This means that if someone is accused of a crime and can't afford a lawyer, the government has to provide one for them. This is important because it helps make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. The court case also said that this right applies to all states in the United States.

A more thorough explanation:

Gideon v. Wainwright is a famous court case in the United States that happened in 1963. The case was about a man named Clarence Earl Gideon who was accused of breaking into a pool hall in Florida. Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer, so he had to represent himself in court. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.

However, Gideon believed that he had the right to a lawyer, even if he couldn't afford one. He appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United States. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and ultimately ruled in his favor.

The Supreme Court used the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the constitutional right to an attorney in federal criminal cases for those who could not afford representation to indigent defendants in state prosecutions. This means that if you are accused of a crime and you can't afford a lawyer, the government has to provide one for you.

For example, if someone is arrested for a crime and they can't afford a lawyer, the government will provide a public defender to represent them in court. This ensures that everyone has access to legal representation, regardless of their financial situation.

The ruling greatly increased the use of public defenders, who are lawyers that work for the government and represent people who can't afford their own lawyer. The Supreme Court held that the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial and denial of such a right would be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Through this case, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Betts v. Brady which denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. This means that even if you are being prosecuted by a state government, you still have the right to a lawyer if you can't afford one.

In 2002, the Supreme Court extended the rule and held that the right applied in all cases where jail time is a possible punishment. This means that even if you are facing a minor crime, like a traffic violation, if jail time is a possible punishment, you still have the right to a lawyer if you can't afford one.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) | gift

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.