Abstract

In this study we try to explore the concept of “Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona” in a holistic context. The main focus of the research is on cases and its relation with each other. The research also analyzes dynamic aspects of “Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona” and tries to gauge its impact on the judicial system of United States. Finally the research describes the relations of both the cases, what reformation these cases have brought in defining Right to Counsel and Bill of Right in the Constitution of United States.

Gideon V. Wainwright

Introduction

The right of an accused criminal to hire defense counsel is enshrined in the American Constitution. The Sixth Amendment states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" (Wroble, pp. 32-66). However, many people cannot afford counsel. Since 1790, a defendant in a federal capital case who cannot afford to pay a lawyer can request counsel and the court will appoint up to two; this safeguard, however, does not apply to noncapital cases. Another problem for those being tried in state court was that the Sixth Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states.

In the twentieth century, though, interpretations of the right to counsel evolved. In capital cases in state courts, the Supreme Court held in 1932 that the right to counsel was part of a fair trial, and thus began to apply the Sixth Amendment to the states. The Court held that the right to counsel was part of due process and thus protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. On the federal level, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) that counsel had to be appointed, if the defendant could not afford it, unless the right to counsel was waived. However, most criminal cases were and are in state court, not federal court (Prentzas, pp. 66-123). The right to counsel in state court in noncapital cases was first stated in 1942, when the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel was not a fundamental part of a fair trial in all criminal cases. The Supreme Court expanded the mandatory right to counsel in certain circumstances, but not all. The general right to counsel in all felony criminal cases came before the Court again in Gideon v. Wainwright.

Clarence Gideon had prepared his own appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming a right to counsel. Although he wrote his legal brief while in prison, it caught the eye of the Court. After appointing him counsel to represent him, the Court voted favorably on his appeal. When he was retried in a lower court, Gideon was freed. The assistance of counsel proved to be essential to his case, as the counsel was able to counter the evidence against him.

The right to counsel for all defendants was only one of the due process rights the Warren Court (as the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was known, 1953-1969) created or ...