The Indigent Defender: Gideon versus Wainwright Do you think indigent defendants, or defendants without lawyers should be provided with lawyers in all court cases? Gideon versus Wainwright is a case that will decide if indigent defendants will. The case of whether indigent defendants should be provided with lawyers. There have been many other cases similar to this, like Powell versus Alabama, Palko versus Connecticut, and Betts versus Brady. Indigent defendants should not be provided lawyers in court unless their offense is capital. The case started in 1961 when a homeless man by the name of Clarence Earl Gideon was caught “Breaking and entering into a Panama City, Florida, pool hall and stealing money from the hall's vending machines” (Mcbride). He stole less than one hundred dollars and some …show more content…
First, an earlier ruling, Betts versus Brady, ruled that “The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate, as such, the specific guarantees found in the Sixth Amendment, although a denial by a State of rights or privileges specifically embodied in that and others of the first eight Amendments may, in certain circumstances, or in connection with other elements, operate, in a given case, to deprive a litigant of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth” (“Betts v. Brady”). This means that the Fourteenth Amendment does not directly connect with the first eight Amendments and therefore, it can be violated in certain circumstances. Also, “Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses” (“Facts and Case Summary-Gideon v. Wainwright”). Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, so he does not deserve a lawyer. Finally, Gideon will be charged with the same offenses even if he has a lawyer. This is because witnesses saw him with money and wine on the way out of the hall. Wainwright should win the case because of these