In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering as well as larceny. It was reportedly said that somebody had broken into a pool hall and caused a mess and stole liquor. A witness pointed out Earl Gideon to the police and was later arrested. In court he asked for an attorney and was denied because at the time you only got appointed an attorney if it was a capital case or if you had a mental defect, which Mr. Gideon didn’t have. He was later sentenced to five years in prison. While in prison he wrote a letter appealing to the supreme court because he believes his rights have been violated, the court agrees. After returning to court, the judge decided that his 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th amendments were violated. The court implemented a new rule which was that if you are charged with a felony and you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.

#2

The Supreme court implemented a new rule which was that if you are charged with a felony and you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.

#3

Gideon v. Wainwright made a huge contribution to the "due process revolution" going on in the Court which is led by Chief Justice Warren. Because of the ruling in this case, all felony defendants who cannot afford an attorney have a right to court-appointed attorneys. 

Miranda was a consolidation of four different cases. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda confessed after being questioned by Arizona police while in custody at a police station. Before he admitted to anything he wasn’t told about his right to counsel. At trial his confession was admitted, and the jury convicted him of kidnapping and rape. Like Miranda, defendants Michael Vignera, Carl Westover and Roy Stewart confessed to their crime after questioning and weren’t told about their right. These four cases were taken to the United States Supreme Court. They wanted to figure out if in custodial interrogation, are safeguards required to protect our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The court then declared the statements of all four men inadmissible and the convictions were reversed.

#2

The Miranda Warning was the outcome of this case. Which has statements such as “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law…”

#3

In the landmark supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court held that if police do not inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights, including their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, then their confessions may not be used as evidence at trial.