Why was Gideon v. Wainwright so important?

Why is Gideon v. Wainwright an important constitutional decision of the US Supreme Court?

• Answer:

  Before Gideon, the Court had decided on a case-by-case basis whether or not to provide a lawyer in representation, except in the case of capital offenses (per Betts v. Brady, (1942)). The unanimous decision in Gideon was that by choosing not to provide any such representation, the Court was effectively violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He had therefore been unjustly convicted. Following this and because the requirement in the Constitution did not explicitly define whether it only applied to capital cases (as was the customarily-held opinion at the time), from that point onward counsel had to be provided for every indigent defendant accused of a felony. In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), the protection was extended by guaranteeing counsel "in any charge resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment," regardless of whether the offense was considered a felony or misdemeanor. In 2002, the Supreme Court further extended the right to counsel to any case where imprisonment is a possibility, even if the sentence is suspended, in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 US 654 (2002). As a result of the Gideon decision, all state courts have a staff of attorneys known as public defenders who provide counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases. In some parts of the country, trial court judges appoint private attorneys to represent poor defendants, and the government pays any fees. Some areas combine these two systems because they don't have enough staff to handle their caseload. Case Citation: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) For more information, see Related Questions, below.