Editing Gideon v. Wainwright (section)

==Implications==

About 2,000 people were freed in Florida alone as a result of the ''Gideon'' decision. The decision did not directly result in Gideon being freed; instead, he received a new trial with the appointment of defense counsel at the government's expense.

Gideon chose [[W. Fred Turner]] to be his lawyer in his second trial. The retrial took place on August 5, 1963, five months after the Supreme Court ruling. During the trial, Turner picked apart the testimony of eyewitness Henry Cook. In his opening and closing statements, Turner suggested that Cook likely had been a lookout for a group of young men who broke into the poolroom to steal beer and then grabbed the coins while they were there. Turner also obtained a statement from a cab driver who had taken Gideon from Bay Harbor to a bar in Panama City, stating that Gideon was carrying neither wine, beer, nor Coca-Cola when he picked him up, even though Cook testified that he had watched Gideon walk from the pool hall to a payphone and then wait for a cab. This testimony completely discredited Cook.

The jury acquitted Gideon after one hour of deliberation. After his acquittal, Gideon resumed his previous life and married sometime later. He died of cancer in Fort Lauderdale on January 18, 1972, at age 61. Gideon's family in Missouri accepted his body and laid him to rest in an unmarked grave. A granite headstone was added later.<ref name="Beaney1963p1153">{{cite journal |last=Beaney |first=William M. |year=1963 |title=The Right to Counsel: Past, Present, and Future |journal=Virginia Law Review |volume=49 |issue=6 |pages=1150–1159 [p. 1153] |doi=10.2307/1071050|jstor=1071050 }}</ref> It was inscribed with a quote from a letter Gideon wrote to Abe Fortas, the attorney appointed to represent him in the Supreme Court: "Each era finds an improvement in law for the benefit of mankind."<ref>{{cite web|last1=King|first1=Jack|title=Clarence Earl Gideon: Unlikely World-Shaker|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=25000|publisher=National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)|access-date=December 10, 2014}}</ref>

===Impact on courts===
The former "incorrect trial" rule, where the government was given a fair amount of latitude in criminal proceedings as long as there were no "shocking departures from fair procedure", was discarded in favor of a firm set of "procedural guarantees" based on the Constitution. The court reversed ''Betts'' and adopted rules that did not require a case-by-case analysis, but instead established the requirement of appointed counsel as a matter of right, without a defendant's having to show "special circumstances" that justified the appointment of counsel.<ref name="Beaney1963p1153" /> In this way, the case helped to refine ''[[stare decisis]]'': when a prior appellate court decision should be upheld and what standard should be applied to test a new case against case precedent to achieve acceptable practice and due process of law.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Israel |first=Jerold H. |year=1963 |title=''Gideon v. Wainwright'': The 'Art' of Overruling |journal=The Supreme Court Review |volume=1963 |pages=211–272 [p. 218] |doi= 10.1086/scr.1963.3108734|jstor= 3108734 |s2cid=141782461 |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/559 }}</ref>

====Public defender system====
Many changes have been made in the prosecution and legal representation of indigent defendants since the ''Gideon'' decision. The decision created and then expanded the need for public defenders, which had previously been rare. For example, immediately following the decision, Florida required [[public defenders]] in all of its circuit courts.<ref>{{cite news |title=Gideon's Promise, Still Unkept |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DA1431F93BA25750C0A965958260 |work=The New York Times |date=March 18, 1993 |access-date=August 8, 2008 }}</ref>

The need for more public defenders also led to a need to ensure that they were properly trained in criminal defense, in order to allow defendants to receive as fair a trial as possible. Several states and counties followed suit. Washington, D.C., for instance, has created a training program for their public defenders, who must receive rigorous training before they are allowed to represent defendants, and must continue their training in order to remain current in criminal law, procedure, and practices.<ref name=Abel2006>Abel, Laura. "2006 ''Edward v. Sparer'' Symposium: Civil ''Gideon'': Creating a Constitutional Right to Counsel in the Civil Context: A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from ''Gideon v. Wainwright''". ''Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review'', Volume 15. Summer 2006.</ref> In 2010, a public defender's office in the South Bronx, [[The Bronx Defenders]], created the Center for Holistic Defense, which has helped many state public defender offices and developed a model of public defense called holistic defense or holistic advocacy. In it, criminal defense attorneys work on interdisciplinary teams, alongside civil attorneys, social workers, and legal advocates to help clients with not only direct but also collateral aspects of their criminal cases. More recently the [[American Bar Association]] and the [[National Legal Aid and Defender Association]] have set minimum training requirements, caseload levels, and experience requirements for defenders.<ref name=Abel2006 />

There is often controversy about whether public defenders' caseloads give them enough time to defend their clients adequately. Some criticize public defenders for encouraging their clients to plead guilty. Some defenders say this is intended to lessen their own workload, while others say it is intended to obtain a lighter sentence by negotiating a [[plea bargain]] as compared with going to trial and risking a harsher sentence. Tanya Greene, an ACLU lawyer, has said that that is why 90% to 95% of defendants plead guilty: "You've got so many cases, limited resources, and there's no relief. You go to work, you get more cases. You have to triage."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jdjournal.com/2013/05/07/how-well-are-the-poor-publicly-defended/ |author=Daniel June |title=How Well are the Poor Publicly Defended? |date=May 7, 2013 |website=jdjournal.com}}</ref>

=== Cause of the civil right to counsel movement ===

''Gideon v. Wainwright'' marked a key transition in [[legal aid in the United States]].<ref name=":0" /> Before ''Gideon'', civil litigants were able to access counsel only based on the following three stringent criteria: whether the case had implications for a private corporation; whether their not receiving counsel would render the trial unfair or in some way compromised in procedure; and whether the case affected the government's interests.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Brito|first=Tonya|date=Winter 2016|title=What We Know and Need to Know about Civil Gideon|journal=South Carolina Law Review|volume=67|pages=223–243|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> 

After ''Gideon'', and amid growing concern about the paucity of resources for poverty lawyering and the resource burden of case-by-case counsel determinations, state judges and legislators saw the benefit of ensuring the right to counsel for civil litigants just as Gideon provided for criminal defendants.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Abel|first=Laura|date=July–August 2006|title=A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright|journal=Clearinghouse Review|volume=40|pages=271–280|via=HeinOnline}}</ref> Additionally, an influential 1997 article by a federal district court judge helped revitalize the conversation about the need and justification for a right to counsel in civil cases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sweet|first=Robert W.|date=1997|title=Civil Gideon and Justice in the Trial Court |journal=The Record of the Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y.|volume=52|pages=915}}</ref>

In contrast to the self-representation movement, the historical civil right to counsel movement was founded on the premise that systemic representation by counsel "ensures more accurate outcomes in civil cases".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Benefits of Counsel in Civil Cases |url=http://civilrighttocounsel.org/about/the_benefits_of_counsel |access-date=October 10, 2022 }}</ref> Proponents of the movement also argue that a right to counsel "saves federal and state government money by helping to avoid the [[negative externalities]] caused by litigants wrongly losing their civil cases (such as increased use of shelters, emergency medical care, foster care, police, and public benefits), and increases the public's faith and investment in the judicial process".<ref name=":1"/>

While the movement has gained substantial traction over time (for instance, 18 jurisdictions enacted a [[Tenant right to counsel|right to counsel for tenants]] facing eviction between 2017 and 2022),<ref>{{cite web |title=The Right to Counsel for Tenants Facing Eviction: Enacted Legislation|url=http://civilrighttocounsel.org/uploaded_files/283/RTC_Enacted_Legislation_in_Eviction_Proceedings_FINAL.pdf |access-date=October 10, 2022 }}</ref> some of its opponents have argued that it places an unreasonable financial burden on states that have an inadequate understanding of the costs and resources needed for civil counsel.<ref name=":1" /> Others argue that the right may lead to constitutionally inadequate representation, as has happened in criminal cases. One judge said that, post-''Gideon'', "many defendants were represented only by 'walking violations of the Sixth Amendment' [...] No constitutional right is celebrated so much in the abstract and observed so little in reality as the right to counsel".<ref name=":0" /> Since publicly financed counsel is not supported financially by the client, there is no guarantee that the appointed counsel will be adequately trained and experienced in the legal domain they are representing.

==== Civil right to counsel: influence on policy and aid provision ====
The movement along with the strong correlation between representation and equitable outcomes for low-income litigants in poverty lawyership scholarship has significantly influenced the policies surrounding legal representation. For example, in 2006, the American Bar Association adopted Resolution 112A, urging jurisdictions to provide legal counsel "as a matter of right at public expense to low-income persons in those categories of adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rexer|first=Norah|date=2014|title=A Professional Responsibility: The Role of Lawyers in Closing the Justice Gap|journal=Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy|volume=22|pages=585–610|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> Outside of influencing policy, the civil right to counsel movement has fueled approaches to legal aid that aim to alleviate the financial burden civil litigants face. Aid through lawyer substitutes has become more prevalent, involving non-lawyer professionals who can assist clients in legal matters without the supervision of a certified attorney.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=D'Angelo-Corker|first=Kristy|date=2019|title=When Less Is More: The Limitless Potential of Limited Scope Representation to Increase Access to Justice for Low- to Moderate-Income Individuals|journal=Marquette Law Review|volume=103|pages=111–162|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> Similarly, pro bono legal aid, which involves providing legal services without fees in order to promote public good, has gained prominence.

===Waiving the right to counsel===
''Doughty v. Maxwell'' demonstrates the differences between how states and the federal government address standards for waiver of the right to counsel. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision of the Ohio court in ''Doughty'', which held that regardless of ''Gideon'', the defendant waived their right to appointed counsel by entering a plea of guilty. The underlying alleged crime and trial in ''Doughty'' took place in [[Ohio]], which had its own way of interpreting the right to counsel, as do many states. [[Pennsylvania]] and [[West Virginia]] also deemed that the right to counsel was waived when a plea of guilty was entered. Depending upon one's viewpoint, rules such as these could be seen as an attempt by a state to establish reasonable rules in criminal cases or as an attempt to save money even at the expense of denying a defendant due process. This varies a great deal from federal law, which generally has stricter guidelines for waiving the right to counsel. An analogous area of criminal law is the circumstances under which a criminal defendant can waive the right to trial. Under federal law, the defendant can only waive their right to trial if it is clear that the defendant understands the "charges, the consequences of the various pleas, and the availability of counsel".<ref>{{cite journal |year=1964 |title=Waiver of the Right to Counsel in State Court Cases: The Effect of ''Gideon v. Wainwright'' |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=591–602 |doi=10.2307/1598554|jstor= 1598554 |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol31/iss3/8 }}</ref> State laws on the subject are often less strict, making it easier for prosecutors to obtain a defendant's waiver of the right to trial.