Final answer:
The Supreme Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright justified breaking with precedent to guarantee legal counsel to all defendants facing felony charges, regardless of their ability to pay, emphasizing the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision that dramatically altered legal precedent regarding the right to counsel. The case centered on Clarence Earl Gideon, who was accused of a felony but could not afford a lawyer and was denied one by the court. His conviction led him to file a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel applies to state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling overturned previous court decisions and established the requirement for states to provide attorneys for defendants who cannot afford one in all felony cases.
The precedent-breaking decision was justified by the Supreme Court's determination that a fair trial cannot be guaranteed without the assurance of legal counsel for the accused, putting particular emphasis on the constitutional value of the right to a proper defense. As a result, this necessitated a major expansion of the public defender system to ensure that indigent defendants receive competent legal representation.