In 1963, the Supreme Court declared that states are required to provide free legal counsel for any indigent defendant charged with a serious crime. What was the nature of the case that dramatically altered our legal system, and on what basis was it decided? This is the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

[uplifting music]

(Describer) Images appear of two graying white men. Title. ‘Bill of Rights Institute.’ Two light complected young people stand before a white background. Images and graphics appear throughout.

[upbeat cheerful music]

(host 1) On June 3rd, 1961, the Pool Room bar in Panama City, Florida, was robbed of a small amount of money and alcohol. Resident Henry Cook came forward and claimed to witness 51-year-old electrician Clarence Earl Gideon leave the bar with stolen items. Gideon, who had prior convictions for robbery, burglary, and larceny, was soon arrested and charged with both breaking and entering and petty larceny. Unable to afford legal counsel, Gideon requested that the state provide him with an attorney, but was denied. Now representing himself in court, Gideon was convicted of both crimes, and given a maximum sentence of five years. Now incarcerated by what he believed to be an unfair trial, how would Gideon respond? Determined to fight back and earn his freedom, Gideon went to the prison library and studied the legal system. In January 1962, Gideon wrote a five-page letter to the United States Supreme Court, pleading for them to hear his case. And to Gideon's relief, they accepted. Gideon v. Wainwright was underway.

(host 1) In Gideon's corner was Supreme Court assigned attorney Abe Fortas. Fortas argued that there could not be a fair trial in a criminal case without counsel, and that citizens uneducated in legal matters cannot properly defend themselves in a court of law. Fortas' main argument came under the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to the "right of counsel in a criminal case," which applies to states via the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Attorney Bruce Jacob represented the state of Florida. His main argument against Gideon was that the state of Florida was only required by law to provide free legal counsel for those accused of capital offenses.

(host 2) The fate of Gideon and other inmates nationwide was hanging on the Supreme Court's decision. Did the state of Florida meet the constitutional requirements of a fair trial when they denied Gideon legal counsel?

(host 1) Delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the ruling was in Gideon's favor by the unanimous vote of nine to zero. Thus overturning the 1942 case Betts v. Brady. States were now required to provide free legal counsel for indigent defendants charged with any serious crime, not just capital offenses. Despite Gideon's victory, he still needed a new trial to overturn his conviction. Using his newfound right to free legal counsel, Gideon received the assistance of attorney W. Fred Turner.

(host 2) After the witness's testimony was discredited, the jury acquitted Gideon of all charges, and he was a free man once again. Considering the thousands of defendants convicted of felonies without access to counsel across the country, detractors argued that providing legal counsel in such a large volume would stall the court system.

(host 2) The role of the public defender rose to prominence and continues to provide representation for defendants to this day.

(host 1) Gideon would preserve a clean legal record for the remainder of his life until his death in 1972. On his headstone is a quote from a letter he wrote to Fortas after the ruling, "Each era finds an improvement in law for the benefit of mankind." What will be the next Supreme Court case to exemplify this? This was the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

(Describer) Accessibility provided by the US Department of Education.

Next time you need help cramming for a test or a quiz, check out another one of our videos and make sure you like, comment, and subscribe.