, Research Paper
Supreme Court Gideon vs. Wainwright- Verdict
In the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the ruling is obviously in favor of Mr. Gideon. His rights of the accused were evidently violated. His rights to a fair trial as well as the right to counsel were severely abridged, and his liberties guaranteed by the Constitution were defied in the name of the state of Florida and its refusing to pay for proper counsel. The State’s law conflicts with the Amendments in the Constitution, and therefore, is unconstitutional. Wainwright’s argument which stated that aid of a counsel is not of fundamental nature to the Constitution, and that Mr. Gideon’s crime was not capital, therefore, he didn’t have to be provided with proper counsel, is deeply flawed. How can one expect an illiterate individual, without any knowledge of the law and how to defend oneself as well as not being able to afford a lawyer, to provide himself with a fair trial? Wainwright has used and abused the term fundamental in an attempt to explain that the defendant’s fundamental rights were not abused, yet, when asked what was his definition of that term, he refrained from responding. It is obvious that the ruling in this case should be in favor of the defendant, Mr. Gideon.