Case Summary: Gideon Vs. Wainwright

In Arizona, relocation of a minor child when there is a written agreement or court order between two parents (both residing in the state of Arizona), is regulated by Arizona Revised Statute 25-408. In most cases, application of this statute’s regulations becomes necessary when one parent wishes to relocate with the minor child out of state. In some cases, such as Thompson v. Thompson, the statute can be cited in relation to relocation within the state of Arizona. A Brief History of the Case: Thompson v. Thompson:

Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”

The important thing of the gideon v. wade case was that gideon spent two years in jail for something he did not do. He is supposed to have a lawyer for the case but when he asked they didn 't give him one. he read books about it in the library and soon wrote a letter to the people saying he did not have a lawyer and that he should be able to redo the case in court. they had meetings about it trying to make a decision. they later replied to him saying they would let him have a retrial with a lawyer.

1. Gideon’s sixth amendment under the constitution was violated which stated that requires the state courts to provide attorneys to criminals who cannot afford their own. The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s amendment was violated. Though his offense was serious he was still supposed to be allowed to have someone to defend him it was one of his rights. The Court stated that the states were to follow the sixth amendment of someone because under the fourteenth amendment “Due Process Clause” applies the main points of the bill of

In the court case, Gil vs Whitford, the major concerns of this particular case was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, is to favor one party or class by manipulating the boundaries of those involved in the electoral constituent. This case first arose in the year 2011; in Wisconsin. In the state of Wisconsin, two republicans were elected in the states assembly and senate. Soon after that, the redirecting plan began to take place.

The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing

Gideon v. Wainwright was a 1963 landmark case in the United States Supreme Court. The court case involved the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment that eventually lead to a fundamental right. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys. On June 3,1963 in Panama City, Florida a man known by Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a poolroom in Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense therefore, he was charged with a felony. Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor man from Florida who ran away from home at a early age and was also under educated and had dyslexic throughout his life.

Gideon claimed that the Supreme Court of the United States entitled him to be represented by counsel. Gideon was then denied a lawyer because the state law of Florida states that the court will only give an

David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.

This means that those charged with lesser crimes are pushed to the back of their caseloads. Public defenders are overworked and underpaid meaning that many times they cannot do their job to the best of their abilities. Sadly because of this system, many of their clients sit in holding cells for months or years, awaiting for a trial that is continually pushed off by their attorney. While the system of free public defenders seemed like an equal foot for criminal clients to stand on in the justice system, it is in reality a very messy and disorganized system that overlooks those without the most pressing issue. Gideon V. Wainright was a landmark case, arguably one of the most important cases of the sixties.

Wainwright was the case where the Sixth Amendment to the constitution was applied to the states. The Sixth Amendment states that a person should have the right to trial by jury, and the right to a lawyer. In the quote from Robert Kennedy (document 3), where he discusses the impact and trial of Gideon v. Wainwright , he proclaims, “he was retried with the help of competent defense council.” In the Gideon v. Wainwright case, Gideon Young had been called into court on the account that he stole change, wine, and coke from the Bay Harbor Pool Hall. He did not make enough money to hire a lawyer, so he asked the state of Florida to provide one for him.

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

The written story of how Clarence Earl Gideon, a poor Florida man, went from a convicted criminal to ultimately redefining legal history is astounding. The Supreme Court commonly dismisses more cases than it accepts and the fact that a handwritten petition from a prison inmate was accepted shows that even the seemingly most insignificant person can make a difference in our society. The book’s literature is highly legalistic but constantly provides a detailed account of how the judicial system is constructed. Coming from a regular college student standpoint with no previous formal law education, this makes the underlying concept easier to grasp. The story’s setting during the time of the Gideon case, showed how the legal system was constructed towards the growing concept of a defendant’s rights.

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.

Application: In the case of Betts v. Brady, Betts was brought to trial on robbery charges and, like Gideon, could not afford an attorney and was refused to be provided with one. He, too, was forced to represent himself and found guilty. While serving his sentence, the Betts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with the circuit court, claiming he had been deprived the right to assistance of counsel, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. His initial petition was rejected, and then he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, again asserting he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to be represented by