Gideon V. Wainwright
Mr. Cheif Justice, may it please the court”. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking into a pool room in Bay Harbor, Florida with intent to
steal. They accused haling some wine, beer, and change from the pool room. Which was considered a felony by Florida law. Gideon had
performed odd jobs on occasions for the owner of this pool room, he had no permanent employment and therefore lacked the funds to hire
counsel for his defense. At his trail, Gideon asked the court to provide him with a lawyer, but the judge denied his request on the basis of Florida
law required counsel for defendants only in capital cases. When they have a death penalty. Gideon pleaded not guilty a proceeded to defend his
own case. The jury convicted him, he was sentenced for five years in state prison.
“This case is about a man who was convicted for stealing with no proof, no lawyer. And was unfairly sentenced for five years in the state prison.
Gideon should be provided with a lawyer, because no man can defend him self. He was a man who could not read or write very well. I think the
key issue in this case was that they did not provide him with a lawyer. We all agreed that Gideon has the right to be provided with a lawyer no
matter what. The unfairness of this case is why would they sentence Gideon for five years in prison just because the witnesses, because they had
no proof. They can even testify something that was not true or something that doesn't have to do anything of what his being accused. Also their
testifies weren't really the same they changed different.
We ask that the court rule that Gideon should be provided with a lawyer and give him a fair trail, because he shouldn't be in the first place in
prison. There was no evidence of them seeing Gideon do it. And in the first place why would Gideon brake the window if he had keys of the
poolroom, and he did not drink beer or smock. So why steel the wine and beer. They should rule the case unconstitutional, because of its
violation of rights.
“Our position is supported by the following precedent”. In the case of Betts V. Brady, this court ruled that they had been deprived of his 6th
Amendment right, and should been provided with a lawyer.This precedent is similar to our case because Betts was denied to a lawyer. The judge
didn't provided him a lawyer just as in our case of Gideon V. Wainwright. They couldn't pay a lawyer because they have the money to have one.
They both had to become there Owen lawyer. They sentenced both to prison with no proof.
“In conclusion, Your Honor, we ask that the court rules to help Gideon with his case. So he can be provided with a lawyer and have a fair trail
because if this isn't applied it can effect a persons life, because what if that person has been charged for no reason with out him doing it he would
have to spend the sentenced that they give him for no reason. It also effect our rights, because why do we have rights if they are going to violate
them and our society.
Thank you, Your Honor.