Question

Defendant in a burglary case notifies the court that he is indigent but is not granted state-appointed counsel. He moves to another state after Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is decided and is arrested for another burglary. He has the same amount of assets and notifies the court that he is indigent. He is appointed counsel in accordance with the Sixth Amendment. What would account for different treatment in different states?

a) Those with prior criminal charges are not entitled to counsel.

b) Gideon v. Wainwright did not apply the right to counsel to state courts.

c) Burglary is not among the crimes for which counsel is provided.

d) Not all states are covered by the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling.

Answer 1

The different treatment in different states when it comes to appointing counsel for indigent defendants can be explained by the fact that not all states are covered by the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling.

Step-by-step explanation:

The different treatment in different states when it comes to appointing counsel for indigent defendants can be explained by option d) Not all states are covered by the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) was a landmark Supreme Court case that held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal representation for indigent defendants in felony criminal cases. However, this ruling only applies to the federal courts and the states that have chosen to incorporate this right into their own state constitutions or laws. Some states may not have enacted laws that fully adopt the Gideon ruling, resulting in variations in the provision of state-appointed counsel for indigent defendants.