This case began in 1961 when a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested. Clarence Earl Gideon was arrest for breaking into a Panama City in Florida. He entered a pool room and planned to steal money from the hall’s vending machines. He was charged in Florida State with a felony because he ended stealing from the vending machines. He did have a criminal back ground and was before in and out of prison but it wasn’t anything big he every committed. At trial, he appeared in court without an attorney because he couldn’t afford on .He requested that the court may appoint one for him at trial but the court judge had denied his request. It was said that the judge denied him the request because of the Florida’s state law that an attorney may only
…show more content…
He argued that the trial court in Florida decision violated his rights of being appointed an attorney because he could afford one himself. “He first filled out a handwritten habeas corpus petition directly …show more content…
The court was unanimously meaning that there with the agreement of all people involved. The Supreme Court had guaranteed the right to an attorney for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. The court decision included him and they agreed that he should be given an attorney. The final decision gave him another trial with an appointed lawyer. He became free from of the charges he was given at the first trial. The court justify their verdict because of the sixth amendment that guarantee of counsel. It’s a basic right that is absolutely necessary to a fair trial that you should be appointed an attorney if you cannot afford one yourself. They based their decision on that Gideon's conviction was unconstitutional because he was denied a defense lawyer at trial. (Bright B., 2013)
As a result of the decision he was given another trial with an appointed lawyer this time. He had chosen a man name W. Fred Turner to be his lawyer for his second trial. The second trial he was given happen on August 5, 1963. It was five months after the Supreme Court ruling. The jury frees him after no more than a one hour of a long and careful discussion. He walks out of the courtroom glad that he got the right verdicts from the Supreme Court this time. He
He argued that the trial court in Florida decision violated his rights of being appointed an attorney because he could afford one himself. “He first filled out a handwritten habeas corpus petition directly …show more content…
The court was unanimously meaning that there with the agreement of all people involved. The Supreme Court had guaranteed the right to an attorney for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. The court decision included him and they agreed that he should be given an attorney. The final decision gave him another trial with an appointed lawyer. He became free from of the charges he was given at the first trial. The court justify their verdict because of the sixth amendment that guarantee of counsel. It’s a basic right that is absolutely necessary to a fair trial that you should be appointed an attorney if you cannot afford one yourself. They based their decision on that Gideon's conviction was unconstitutional because he was denied a defense lawyer at trial. (Bright B., 2013)
As a result of the decision he was given another trial with an appointed lawyer this time. He had chosen a man name W. Fred Turner to be his lawyer for his second trial. The second trial he was given happen on August 5, 1963. It was five months after the Supreme Court ruling. The jury frees him after no more than a one hour of a long and careful discussion. He walks out of the courtroom glad that he got the right verdicts from the Supreme Court this time. He