Docket 155
Gideon v. Wainwright
DecidedMar 18, 1963
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules states must provide free lawyers to poor defendants in felony criminal cases
What it does
The ruling overturns a prior decision that let states deny free lawyers to poor defendants unless "special circumstances" made a trial unfair without one. It holds that the right to a lawyer in a criminal trial is a fundamental right, so states must appoint counsel for indigent defendants charged with felonies just as federal courts already must.
Who benefits
People charged with felony crimes in state court who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
Who is affected
State governments and state court systems, which must now create or expand public defender systems and appoint counsel in felony cases regardless of whether "special circumstances" exist.
Practical impact
State courts nationwide must now appoint and pay for defense lawyers for defendants facing felony charges who cannot afford their own attorney. States without existing public defender systems had to establish them, and many prior convictions obtained without appointed counsel became subject to challenge through habeas corpus petitions.
Majority reasoning
The majority, led by Justice Black, held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and fundamental rights of this kind are made obligatory on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, following the reasoning of Powell v. Alabama. The Court reasoned that governments spend money to hire prosecutors and that defendants who can afford it always hire lawyers, showing that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. It concluded that a poor person charged with a crime cannot be assured a fair trial in the adversary system of American justice unless a lawyer is provided, because he cannot be expected to know the rules of evidence or effectively present a defense on his own. The Court found that Betts v. Brady had made "an abrupt break" with the Court's own earlier precedents recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to counsel, and it restored those earlier precedents.
Constitutional question
Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, require state courts to appoint a lawyer for a criminal defendant too poor to afford one?
Precedent changed
Overrules Betts v. Brady (1942), which had held that denial of appointed counsel to an indigent state felony defendant violated due process only if "special circumstances" made the trial unfair.