Final answer:
Alabama v. Shelton and Gideon v. Wainwright are similar cases as both address the right to legal counsel for indigent defendants under the Sixth Amendment, with the precedent set by Gideon v. Wainwright directly influencing the Shelton case.
Step-by-step explanation:
Alabama v. Shelton is analogous to Gideon v. Wainwright in that both involve the right to legal counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases, assured by the Sixth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that states must provide an attorney for defendants who cannot afford one in felony cases, and this principle was extended in subsequent decisions to include cases where any loss of liberty could occur as a punishment, which is a core similarity with Alabama v. Shelton.
In Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Earl Gideon was denied a public defender and had to represent himself, leading to his conviction. He filed an in forma pauperis petition to the Supreme Court, which was accepted, and the Court unanimously ruled that he had a right to legal representation under the Sixth Amendment. This decision established a precedent that was influential in the Shelton case, highlighting the importance of legal counsel to ensure fair trials and protect the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The stare decisis principle means that cases with similar facts should be decided in the same manner, based on established precedent. Given that Alabama v. Shelton involved the defendant's inability to afford representation and the potential for loss of liberty, the constitutional right to counsel guaranteed by Gideon v. Wainwright became directly applicable, emphasizing the legal similarity and the adherence to established precedent.