Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case: Gideon V. Wainwright

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Larry Offutt (“Offutt”), appellant, was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and related charges. On appeal, Austin presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of a state’s witness regarding her involvement in an unrelated offense. 2. Whether the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the prosecutor’s statements on the grounds that the statements impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense.

Name Tutor Course Date Marbury v. Madison 1. Summary of the history of the case and its significance on our structure of government.

The Salem Witch Trials wrongly convicted over one hundred fifty people through unfair court cases in 1692, due to the bias of the people, the unpassable tests used, and the illegal way they were run. The convictions were all done in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, which was created by the current Governor Sir William Phips, and led by Chief Judge William Stoughton, along with 6 other judges (EB 1) (Boraas 24). This court was closed within the year, and a new court was opened, the Superior Court of Judicature, which was less unfair, and made no convictions during the time it was open. This court was then also closed after a few months (EB 1). During the trials, every sort of person was accused, from rich to poor.

Another argument could have been the fact that the other defendant’s sister was in close relation to Brady which clouded his judgement to make the right descion. If circumstances were different and the prosecution never withheld evidence from the defense the “Brady Rule” would have never been established. Following the proceedings of Brady vs. Maryland the rule was created compelling the prosecution to turn over any evidence to the defense if they require it. So therefore, if the court would have ruled in favor of Brady’s ruling there could have been a chance that Brady’s circumstances would have turned out to be in his favor. Although when Brady took part in the criminal acts with Boblit he must have known there would have been negative consequences for his part in the robbery and murder of Brooks.

In this episode of “Criminal Injustice,” with David A. Harris, Harris and guest Beth Schwartzapfel, who is the author of two articles on this set of problems and is a staff writer on the Marshall Project, talk about the Brady v. Maryland rule as well as how this rule is violated daily to the point where it negatively impacts the whole system and why it is long overdue for change on this issue. Back in 1963, the Supreme court decided the case of Brady v. Maryland. In this case, the government withheld crucial evidence from the defense. The supreme court said that if the prosecution has material evidence in its possession that would exonerate or even lessen the punishment the defendant then the prosecution would have disclosed that evidence.

In 1838, Henry B. Truett was convicted of the murder of Jacob Early. Early (a physician) and Truett became enraged in a political quarrel; a quarrel that was provoked by Truett. His young, inexperienced attorney—who had been practicing law for less than two years—spoke to the jury in a controversial yet engaging tone. The young attorney painted the events that led to the murder of Early in vivid color for the jury. While Truett had provoked Early, Early’s rage grew to such levels Truett felt his life was in imminent danger.

A person’s right to have a lawyer and having a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”). Public defenders, or lawyers appointed by the court, provide representation in court without cost to the defendant. Fifty years after the ruling, public attorneys has been under scrutiny by both lawyers and clients. Said counsels are known for facing underfunding and unmanageable caseloads, while their clients claim that they are poorly represented in court.

The supreme court agreed with Gideon on his request for a court appointed attorney. The Supreme Court didn’t assist him with bail but they provided him a second chance. His second chance proved why everyone should have access to a court appointed attorney. His attorney served him equal justice and Gideon was found innocent & set free.

Since the establishment of the United States Supreme Court in 1789 the role and function of the court has varied depending on the need of the country. There are several different schools of thought when it comes to the purpose and the function that the Supreme Court should take, ranging from strictly ruling on constitutional matters up to weighing in on national policy cases. To evaluate what role the court actually takes, one must examine both the institutional function as well as the political function. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court.

As though it is not a fundamental right to have an appointed counsel to those who cannot afford one, Betts v. Brady did bring up rather valid points. The Court goes back to the foundation of our “adversary system.” It claims that a person whom has no funds to obtain an attorney is more likely to have an unjust trial. The court states that much money is used to charge or “accuse” defendants of crimes they may or may not have committed. Prosecutors which are lawyers of the government are to be looked at as a necessity to keep public order.


 Foster filed a motion after the trial for post-judgement discovery regarding the prosecution’s notes and records. This motion was denied. Foster then filed a motion for a new trial, restating his previous arguments, and was denied again. In 1988, Foster filed a direct appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court which resulted in an affirmation of the trial court’s ruling concerning the Batson allegations (Bright, 2015, p. 3-4). In 1989, Foster filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia to address his intellectual state which temporarily suspended the rest of the case.

Darrow creates a lasting mental impression and invokes fear through his use of graphic imagery and word repetition. The transition from guilt to fear drills deeper into their emotions . During the Scopes Trial, where a man was condemned for teaching evolution, Darrow defends science over religion, as he states that: If today you can take...evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant… (“Attorney for the Damned”187).

The role of the jury in capital cases Capital cases that include the death penalty are carefully analyzed and structured to allow the fairest due process. The selection of the jurors is one of the most crucial parts of the case. Attorneys and judges have to come to an agreement on who will serve on the jury before the case goes to trial. There have been many cases that have argued the selection of the jurors, for example, Uttecht v. Brown, Lockhart v. McCree, and many others. These cases have faced controversy due to the selection of jurors and have set precedents for new and present cases.

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.

The prisoner’s rights movement is mostly recognized for the events that occurred through the 1960s until the 1980s but it is important to review cases beforehand that led up to the movement itself. In the case of Pervear v. Massachusetts of 1866 a case was fought through the Supreme Court. The court ruled that prisoners should have no constitutional rights, which concluded the Eighth Amendment did not apply to them. The Eighth Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (US Const. Amend XIII).