Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Gideon v. Wainwright

Supreme Court of the United States · 1963 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureConstitutional LawSixth Amendmentright to counselincorporationindigent defendantsright to counselSixth Amendment

Facts

Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with breaking and entering a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor, an offense that was a felony under Florida law. He appeared without funds and without a lawyer and asked the court to appoint counsel, but the court denied the request because Florida law allowed appointment only in capital cases. Gideon then represented himself at trial, where he made an opening statement, cross-examined witnesses, presented witnesses, declined to testify, and made a short closing argument. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to five years in state prison.

Issue

Whether the Constitution requires a state court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony. More specifically, whether the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby requiring overruling of Betts v. Brady.

Rule

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, and this right is fundamental and essential to a fair trial. Because it is fundamental, the Fourteenth Amendment makes this guarantee obligatory on the States, which must provide counsel to indigent defendants charged with felonies unless the right is competently and intelligently waived.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, Marcus Reed was charged in state court with felony burglary. He told the judge he had no money to hire a lawyer and asked for appointed counsel, but the judge denied the request because the county's policy was to appoint lawyers only in homicide cases; Marcus then represented himself and was convicted.

Under the controlling constitutional rule, which is the best assessment of Marcus's conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and the Fourteenth Amendment makes that guarantee obligatory on the States. Thus, when an indigent defendant is charged with a felony in state court, counsel must be appointed unless the defendant competently and intelligently waives that right. The State may not rely on a narrower local policy, and the Court rejected the case-by-case totality approach associated with the overruled prior rule.