Question

In Gideon, the US Supreme court is reviewing the constitutionality of a State Court's denial request for counsel. In the Gideon Case the court makes note that the facts of Betts and Gideon are virtually the same. However, the court comes to a different conclusion in the Gideon case. What did the court say about the ruling in Betts and how it should be applied to Gideon or what did the court do in regard to the ruling in Betts?

Answer 1

In the Gideon case, the Supreme Court overruled the previous ruling in Betts v. Brady and held that the right to counsel extends to felony defendants in state courts.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the Gideon case, the US Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a State Court's denial request for counsel. They noted that the facts of Betts v. Brady and Gideon v. Wainwright were virtually the same. However, the court came to a different conclusion in the Gideon case.

In the ruling of Betts v. Brady in 1942, the Supreme Court held that indigent defendants may be denied counsel when prosecuted by a state. However, in the Gideon case in 1963, the Supreme Court overruled Betts v. Brady and held that the right to counsel is a fundamental right that extends to felony defendants in state courts.

Therefore, the court in Gideon concluded that the ruling in Betts v. Brady was no longer valid and that indigent defendants facing felony charges in state courts must be provided with legal representation.