Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Analysis

Although evidence proves that Bob is guilty of the crime, he is protected under the 6th amendment to a right of counsel in a trial. Therefore, he must be assigned a public defender regardless if the evidence found at the scene of the crime proves him guilty. As presented in the Supreme Court case of Gideon V. Wainwright, the defendant Clarence Earl Gideon broke into a pool hall in Panama City Florida hall. He was accused of stealing beer, wine, and coins adding up to less than $50 (Cohen, 2013). At the trial Gideon announced to the judge that he was unable to afford a lawyer therefore requesting to be appointed by a counsel. The judge denied his request on behalf of the Florida state laws. According to the judge the law in Florida states that a counsel can only be appointed to a defendant, if the crime is a capital offense (Cohen, 2013). However, the Florida judge was wrong the Florida law does prohibit Gideon to be appointed an attorney thus violating his 6th amendment right. Therefore, Bob has the right to have a counsel appointed to him as proven in the Gideon v. Wainwright case. …show more content…
To begin with, the defendant has to request for a counsel at their arraignment. The defendant will also have to prove that he cannot financially afford a private attorney (Cohen, 2013). While the individuals' arraignment occurs the first question asked by the judge will be whether or not your represented by an attorney if the answers no they will also ask if you want to be appointed by one (Find law). The judge could choose to appoint an attorney that is present in the courtroom, however the defendant may not have the same attorney throughout the whole case. Other judges may postpone the arraignment until the financial situation of the defendants is investigated (Find