Gideon v. Wainwright Background Questions WITH ANSWERS PDF

Preview

Summary

Gideon v. Wainwright Background Questions WITH ANSWERS...

Description

Bushra Mujeeb Response Questions:

3/11/19

1. What were the accusations against Clarence Gideon? Clarence Gideon was accused of breaking and entering into Bay Harbor Pool Room. At the pool room, it was suspected that “Someone broke a window, smashed the cigarette machine and jukebox, and stole money from both”. 2. Did Gideon seem capable of defending himself? How could a lawyer have helped him? Gideon did not seem capable of defending himself as he was not a settled down man. He was not only semi-literate, but he was also a drifter which essentially made had him moving from one home to another as he did not have a fixated one. Considering that Gideon did a very poor job of defending himself, he could have been assisted by a lawyer as the lawyer wouldn't have appointed the police officers that arrested him to somehow defend Gideon. Additionally, the lawyer could have assisted Gideon in cross-examining witnesses in order to impeach their credibility. Ultimately, by having a lawyer, Gideon would not have been found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which was a felony. 3. What was unusual about the petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States? The petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States was unusual as he educated himself about his rights and wrote the petition through studying law in the prison library. The Court allowed him to file it so that the Court would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition, also known as forma pauperis. Generally, the Court dismisses most of these petitions. However, Gideon's was among those that it did not dismiss. 4. Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case? The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Gideon’s case as Gideon hand wrote a petition for a “writ of certiorari”. Because Gideon sent a formal request for his case to be heard, the Supreme Court was bound to accept hearing it. Additionally, the Supreme Court also wanted to determine whether or not in state criminal trial, are indigent defendants entitled to a lawyer? 5. What is the language in the Bill of Rights that is relevant to this case? Would you interpret those words to mean a defendant cannot be denied an attorney if he can afford one, or that a defendant must be provided an attorney even if he cannot afford one? Why? In the 6th amendment, it is stated that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”. Even if it is not entirely explicit, it should be common sense that a lawyer or right to counsel is provided for not only the affluent, but also the indigent. Ultimately, even if a defendant can’t afford an attorney, they should be provided with one anyways. 6. Do you think the states should be required to provide defendants like Gideon with a lawyer? Why or why not?

States should be required to provide defendants like Gideon with a lawyer as he was not only close to indigent, but he was also semi-illiterate. People that are are not able to afford a lawyer should not be disadvantaged and not provided a lawyer as they too are in need of a speedy and proper trial. Additionally, even though Gideon had prior charges, he should not be automatically bound to be charged again as he could have changed for the better....