Question

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Clarence Gideon could not afford - and was denied - legal representation in his case based on the Florida statute that only afforded criminal suspects court appointed attorneys in capital cases. The SCOTUS ruled that under the 6th Amendment

	A.	the U.S. Constitution does not distinguish between capital and non-capital crimes under the 6th Amendment's protection for the individual to "have the assistance of counsel"
	B.	citizens have a right to privacy and Gideon's right to privacy was violated by the police
	C.	Gideon's individual rights are subordinate to the principle of protecting the public for the greater good and it is therefore justified to violate the individual liberties of citizens under circumstances where the greater good for society is well served
	D.	Gideon had a right to an abortion, to read Huslter magazine and smoke marijuana
	E.	Gideon was guilty even with legal representation

Answer 1

The answer is A. the U.S. Constitution does not distinguish between capital and non-capital crimes under the 6th Amendment's protection for the individual to "have the assistance of counsel"

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court unanimously held up the right to have an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

Supreme court thus opined that the U.S constitution does not distinguish between capital and non-capital crimes and individuals shall have right to the assistance of counsel even when they cannot afford such counsel.