Question

The Sixth Amendment was interpreted in (3 points)

Gideon v. Wainwright to mean that accused people have a right to be informed of their rights

Gideon v. Wainwright to mean states must pay for counsel if the defendant cannot afford it

Miranda v. Arizona to mean that accused people have a right to be informed of their rights

Miranda v. Arizona to mean states must pay for counsel if the defendant cannot afford it

Answer 1

B

Step-by-step explanation:

Background of the case

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon stood trial in Florida, accused of robbing a pool hall. Gideon was indigent

and could not afford a lawyer. He requested that the court provide one for him, but Florida only provided lawyers for defendants accused of capital offenses

. At this time, the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel applied only to the federal government, not to the states.

Gideon, forced to defend himself, lost his case. The court sentenced him to five years in prison. While he was in prison, Gideon educated himself about the law and became convinced that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states. He appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction.

Finally, he mailed a handwritten letter to the US Supreme Court. He requested that the Court review his case and appoint a lawyer to defend him.