Editing Gideon v. Wainwright (section)

==Court decision==
[[File: Gideon petition for certiorari.jpg|thumb|upright|The first page of Gideon's handwritten petition for a writ of [[certiorari]] to the US Supreme Court.]]
The Supreme Court's decision was announced on March 18, 1963, and delivered by Justice [[Hugo Black]]. The decision was announced as being unanimous in favor of Gideon.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155|title=Gideon v. Wainwright|website=Oyez|publisher=Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech|access-date=December 21, 2016}}</ref> Two concurring opinions were written by Justices [[Tom C. Clark|Clark]] and [[John Marshall Harlan II|Harlan]]. Justice [[William O. Douglas|Douglas]] wrote a separate opinion. The Supreme Court decision specifically cited its previous ruling in ''[[Powell v. Alabama]]'' (1932). Whether the decision in ''Powell v. Alabama'' applied to non-capital cases had sparked heated debate. ''[[Betts v. Brady]]'' (1942) had earlier held that, unless certain circumstances were present, such as illiteracy or low intelligence of the defendant, or an especially complicated case, there was no need for a court-appointed attorney in state court criminal proceedings. ''Betts'' had thus provided the selective application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states, depending on the circumstances, as the Sixth Amendment had only been held binding in federal cases. ''Gideon'' overruled ''Betts'', holding that the assistance of counsel, if desired by a defendant who could not afford to hire counsel, was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, binding on the states, and essential for a fair trial and due process of law regardless of the circumstances of the case. The Court explained its rationale in these words:

{{quote|[L]awyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant's need for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of [[George Sutherland|Mr. Justice Sutherland]] in ''[[Powell v. Alabama]]'':

"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."<ref>{{cite web |title=Gideon v. Wainwright :: 372 U.S. 335 (1963), at 344-345. |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=November 30, 2020 |date=March 18, 1963}}</ref>}}

Clark's concurring opinion stated that the Sixth Amendment does not distinguish between capital and non-capital cases, so legal counsel must be provided for an indigent defendant in all cases.<ref name="WDL">{{cite web |url = http://www.wdl.org/en/item/3935/ |title = Clarence Earl Gideon, Petitioner, vs. Louis L. Wainwright, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent |website = [[World Digital Library]] |year = 1963 |access-date = August 3, 2013 }}</ref> Harlan's concurring opinion stated that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge in itself constituted special circumstances requiring the services of counsel at trial.

''Gideon v. Wainwright'' was one of a series of Supreme Court decisions that confirmed the right of defendants in criminal proceedings, upon request, to have counsel appointed both during the trial and on appeal. In the subsequent cases ''[[Massiah v. United States]],'' 377 U.S. 201 (1964), and ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'' 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court further extended the rule to apply during police interrogation.