Talk:Gideon v. Wainwright

I do not k now what to say but. This is it; our whole system is falling! You already I know that and I think I may have an idea.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Varshanekkanti. Peer reviewers: Allibsusss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Gideon Quoted Correctly?

Gideon is quoted as telling the trial judge that the United States Supreme Court says he is entitled to counsel. If Gideon said that, then he was either lying or misinformed. The ruling Supreme Court precedent at that time was Betts v. Brady, which held exactly opposite to Gideon's contention, and which had to be expressly overruled in order to provide Gideon with the relief he was seeking. Is it possible that Gideon said the United States Constitution guaranteed him the right to counsel?John Paul Parks (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's what he said. He was unaware of Betts v. Brady 147.9.236.104 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hey all. I made some corrections to the nature of the references, turning textual numbers into the superscript links typical of citations. However, I have not checked that the sources matche up correctly with the citation points originally in the document, and there were several references in the "References" section that were not cited anywhere. I have left in the uncited references in hopes that someone else will know what to do with them.

These sources may be useful to add to the article -

• http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-americans-lost-right-counsel-50-years-after-gideon
• http://yalelawjournal.org/issue/issue/volume-122-issue-8-june-2013 (vol. 122/ no. 8 / pp. 2106-2720) June 2013 - "Gideon effect" symposium - SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) 10:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Supremacyclauses' edits

What is the training Splash or Mateo received in American jurisprudence, that permits their editing this article with self-assurance? I recommend their reviewing the referenced, non-partisan review of the case in the Courttv website included. -- Supremacyclaus

Simple intelligence and fairness. The review on the CourtTV web site may be non-partisan, but your edits are distorted and do not follow from that source. Despite your distorted edits, the review does not conclusively show that Gideon was guilty—in fact it never makes a conclusion about his guilt at all. The article does not say that there was overwhelming evidence of Gideon's guilt. Your claim that Fred Turner distorted the testimony of a witness is an opinion, and is also not supported by the review—the review itself points out factual discrepancies in the eyewitness' report that undermined his credibility. Your claims about a "tsunami of criminal victimization" (which, by the way, literally means that criminals became victims) and "Two decades of high crime rates ensu[ing]" are also not supported (or even mentioned) by the review. The remarks about Abe Fortas later taking a bribe are irrelevant—Fortas defended Gideon because he was the lawyer for the defense, not because he "loved criminals" (and, once again, the evidence on Gideon's guilt or innocence is not conclusive). The review does not suggest that Gideon "carried on an able defense"; once again, it actually says the opposite. The review does not say that Gideon was heard by the Supreme Court because his appeal was "well argued"—it says he was heard because the Court wanted to rule on the issue of providing lawyers for indigents. Your edits are being reverted because they are distorted, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Mateo SA | talk 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I want us to stop playing ping pong here. We are not in the third grade anymore. Without addressing your arguments, is there a reason you refuse to allow readers to click on the Courttv site to read the entire story for themselves, instead of being fed the biased, one sided propaganda of the article, and not learning of both sides of the story? Why don't you restore the link to that site for greater detail? Would you restore the criminal victimization remarks if you had a graph of the rates? For example, the rate tripled, and did so after this decision.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ -- Supremacyclaus

• I am happy to provide a link to the Court TV web site in this article, though it doesn't add much to the article. The Court TV link was removed because you used it as a source for your claims, and the article does not support those claims (and, in some cases, refutes them). You do not seem to understand that the facts of that article are not the same as the conclusions you draw from that article and your personal biases.
• As for the crime statistics link, correlation is not the same as causation. Simply because crime rates started to rise after the Gideon decision does not prove that the decision caused the increase. Numerous other events occurred in the 1960s before the crime rate began to increase; you could say with equal validity that any one of these "caused" the increase in crime rates. Some people, for example, blame the increase on the school prayer decision in Abington School District v. Schempp.

Mateo SA | talk 03:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mateo: Noted the Courttv link. Thank you. Why not place the graph of the crime rate, along with your correlation/causation critique, let the reader decide? Once we get over this hurdle, using only your "Simple intelligence and fairness." I want to review the guilt of Gideon, step by step. -- Supremacyclaus

No, we shouldn't place the crime rate graph here, because Wikipedia does not publish original research, and Wikipedia is not a place for individual contributors to argue for their political beliefs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reports on existing knowledge; it is not a place for contributors to create their own theories and argue for them. Theories and criticisms like this should only be included in the article when they have been published in external sources.

I'm not going to argue about Gideon's innocence or guilt here. Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. I mentioned the subject in my previous reply because I was talking about what the Court TV article said. You claimed that that article said there was "overwhelming evidence of [Gideon's] guilt"; the article did no such thing.

By the way, we usually sign our talk-page posts on Wikipedia. To do this, put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post.

Mateo SA | talk 18:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Activist Judges?

Why are there two lines in this article on Earl Warren's status as an 'Activist Judge'. Not only does this seem to be a POV, but any discussion of this belongs in the article on Earl Warren, not on a case. --Barberio 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It does seem POV, especially since the decision in Gideon was unanimous. The supporting justices included John Marshall Harlan II, known for condemning "activism".

Also, just to be clear, are you referring to the following two sentences?:

It is a decision emblematic of the Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose tenure is marked by decisions that expand the scope of rights protected for U. S. citizens. The Warren Court has generally been regarded as activist; that is, willing to turn against precedent and break new ground in what opponents call "judge-made law".

Merge?

I don't see any reason to merge with the Gideon article. This is about a court case, the other is about an individual. --agr 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Keeping biography and case details seperate is a normal procedure on Wikipedia. (See Roe V. Wade and Sarah Weddington). Zapping the merge tags, since it was never raised on either talk page so I doubt there's any real call for it. --Barberio 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wainwright?

Who is this Wainwright person Gideon is versing? The article never explains who this guy is. Is he from the original case (his burglary sentance) or from the violation of due process case (in the United States Supreme Court)? Carsinmotion 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Louis Wainwright was the head of the Florida Department of Corrections and the person legally responsible for keeping Gideon in prison.John Paul Parks (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

cite for 1999 study

Can a citation be added for the 1999 study mentioned that states that defendants represented by private attorneys fared better than those represented by appointed counsel? Who did it? How can it be looked up or verified? It also only refers to felonies- did it also look at misdemeanors? It also doesn't mention jail times. Did those with private counsel receive more or less jail time? If a citation cannot be added, then I think the study should be deleted, as it cannot be verified.

Talmquist 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Amendments

I cleaned up the article a little with regard to the citing of Amendments to the Constitution. It is technically incorrect to put in the lead paragraph that Gideon's Fourteenth and Sixth Amendment rights were found to have been violated. In actuality his right to cousel under the Sixth Amendment has been violated. The Fourteenth Amendment was simply used to apply the Sixth Amendment to the states.

I also removed multiple wikilinks. The Amendments only need to be linked once within the given article.

Skyler1534 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 what about respondent's argument

Wikipedia has policies against youtube. It may possibly be used if you legally signed over the ownership of the youtube clip to the GNU Free Documentation License. However, that is a legal process. Your say-so is not enough. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) who ever reads this is either stupied or american.....!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.10.98 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Burglary v. Larceny

Someone changed the article to say that a burglary occurred when before it said a larceny occurred. Since he was only accused of "having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor" I do not think this is burglary although I am not sure whether the definition of burglary under Florida law includes an intention to commit a misdemeanor (under commonlaw it requires an intent to commit a felony). I changed it back, but if someone more knowledgeable about Florida than I knows that it was a burglary, I invite a correction.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 FL statutes [1] define burglary as "entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain" for offenses committed before 2001; and the 1997 version [2] also defines burglary this way - there appears to be no felony requirement. It's rather hard to find 1963 FL laws. However, certain websites like [3] refer to the crime as burglary. It seems likely that the crime is indeed a burglary, so I'm changing it back. Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Clear Vandalism

The first part of 'History' is vandalized. It is written over some previous material. I spotted another part a paragraph or two down. Some original text may have been deleted and I'm not too good at this, so I'm leaving it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.11.59 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

Dean Bruce Jacob would like request that under "Facts and prior history" in the last paragraph the second sentence to read "Opposing, Bruce Jacob, who later became Dean of the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer and Dean of the Stetson University College of law, argued the case for the State of Florida" rather than "Opposing, Bruce Jacob, who later became Dean of Stetson University College of Law, argued the case for the State of Florida." If you have any questions you can contact Bruce Jacob at email redacted Thank you for your help. Aeells (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done --Stabila711 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Handwritten petition

There is a photo (or a scanned copy) of the petition. But I can only see the first page. Is there more? Where is the rest of it? Can it be included? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Florida Supreme Court

When Gideon decided to file a petition. He first sent a letter to the Florida Supreme Court claiming that his rights had been violated because a counsel had not been appointed for him. His petition was denied. But in this artical it says he just sent a letter to the US supremem court, should i add the missing information or I missed something? Csar00 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No response, i will be adding it to the article shortly. Csar00 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

References