Gideon v. Wainwright

Background- Throughout history the Supreme Court looked at how the absence of counsel affected one's right to due process law and a fair trial.
A burglary at a Pool Room occurred and later that day Gideon was accused by an eye witness then taken into police custody soley on the basis of the eye witness. Gideon was to poor to afford counsel to defend him in court, but the court ended up denying his claim to counsel. Forced to represent himself, he lost the case and was found guilty. Later Gideon appealed to the supreme court suing against a secretary in Florida.

Issue- Do the constitution give ALL people the right to counsel no matter the circumstances; furthermore, does the absence affect how a jury may rule?

Decision- 6 to 3 in favor of Gideon
M-Black, Warren, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
D-Clark, Douglas, Harlan

My opinion is that they were right to be in favor or Gideon and overturn the ruling on Betts v. Brady because if only some cases are allowed to be appointed counsel then that denies a fair trial to the others who are rejected counsel. No matter what when counsel is present and innocent person has the ability to be supported. Not all people can have a fair chance of winning a case if they do not know how to represent themselves because of lack of knowledge of the court system, not knowing how to show evidence during trial, etc. When represented each accused person has a better chance at finding a verdict fairly.