In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that Gideon had been denied his rights because he had hired an expensive lawyer he could not afford. not been provided an attorney when he could not afford one. paid bail he could not afford. been questioned without having his Miranda warning read.
Answers
Gideon had been denied his rights because he had not been provided an attorney when he could not afford one.
Clarence Gideon had been charged with a burglary in Florida, and the judge said he could not appoint an attorney for Mr. Gideon because the crime of which he was accused was not a capital offense. Gideon claimed he was entitled to be represented by counsel, but the judge did not agree. Gideon was convicted and went to state prison. From there, he appealed to the US Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. (By the time the case came before the Supreme Court, that was Louie L. Wainwright, thus "Gideon v. Wainwright.")
The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Gideon's claim, and since then, all persons, whether in state or federal court, are entitled to the right to counsel and an attorney is appointed if they cannot afford to hire their own.
Answer:
Gideon held been refused his requests because he kept not being nourished an attorney when he could not afford one.
Explanation:
Gideon held been refused his requests because he kept not being nourished an attorney when he could not afford one.
Clarence Gideon held stood charged with a burglary in Florida, and the judge stated he could not establish an attorney for Mr. Gideon because the crime of which he stood accused stood not a capital offense. Gideon claimed he existed permitted to be described by counsel, but the judge did not approve. Gideon stood convicted and proceeded to state prison. From there, he appealed to the US Supreme Court in a case against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. (By the time the case arrived before the Supreme Court, that stood Louie L. Wainwright, therefore "Gideon v. Wainwright.")
The Supreme Court decided with Mr. Gideon's claim, and since then, all persons, whether in state or federal court, exist permitted the right to counsel and an attorney exists appointed if they cannot afford to engage their own.
Therefore, the correct answer is option (b) not being provided an attorney when he could not afford one.
#SPJ2