*Gideon v Wainwright* - incorporated the sixth amendment; based on the sixth amendment - Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon’s decision. - The 14th amendment equal protection clause applies to the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights to the states - The state will only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases and thus Gideon was not entitled to representation appointed by the state
More like April because the AP Gov exam is gonna be the first one administered, on May 2nd. This is specifically for the 2022 school year, just to clarify for people who might see this comment in following years.
Haaaaang on here a minute. Why did you say that Gideon broke into a pool hall and stole money as if that's a fact? He was accused of doing so, yes. But the whole point here is that, while he was found guilty, he did not have a fair trial as he was forced to represent himself in a court of law against a trained prosecutor. He always maintained his innocence. Gideon received a second trial in 1963 with proper representation and was acquitted. This inaccuracy could have been avoided by adding "was accused of" instead of saying it is a "fact of the case" that Gideon committed a crime.
No, the equal protection clause is what the state uses to selectively incorporate different amendments, and in this case, Gideon wasn't equally equipped with a lawyer who could be with him during trials.
gideon got arrested for breaking in somewhere and stealing something, but he had to act as his own lawyer. constitutional principle: 6th amendment; criminal cases have a right to a lawyer (federal govt) - but 14th amendement applies BOR to states ruling - 6th applies to states (selective incoorperation)
If you mean 5th, then due process is talked about both there and the 14th amendment (as mentioned in the video). 4th is searches and seizures so I don't think there's a relation.
I have two problems with this Supreme Court ruling. The first one is that I do not see how the 14th amendment to the US constitution can support the conclusion. The relevant part of the 14th amendment reads: Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Context: This is right after the US Civil War. In the Confederate States of America, black slaves were not CSA citizens. Neither were they citizens of the state wherein they resided. The 14th amendment is intended to be an anti-Jim Crow amendment that prevents Southern states from taking away the rights of their black citizens. Nowhere does it state that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments. It would have been very simple for the authors of this amendment to write, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall violate amendments 1 to 10 of this constitution." But that is not what it says! The second problem I have with this Supreme Court ruling is that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And if the judge hearing a case is not presented by the prosecutor with evidence to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then the judge should direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty." It is difficult for the prosecution to present evidence to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is, in fact, innocent. So in a properly functioning judicial system the defendant should not need a lawyer. Saying that every defendant needs a lawyer is a confession that the judicial system is profoundly dysfunctional and needs to be reformed.
It is clear the 14th amendment applies as it deals with states abridging due process rights and to your point that in a proper judicial system people shouldn’t require a lawyer is either naive or plain stupid. Courts require strict and abundant rules in order to protect the interests of all parties and the average citizen can not and should not be expected to be knowledgeable to them while their life and liberty are at stake. This poses a clear bias to prosecutors as they are well seasoned lawyers and bring the case on the governments side.
@@greysondeane4000 1. From where do you get the idea that failure to provide a government-paid lawyer is a violation of due process rights? 2. I presume that judges are aware of all the legal procedural rules and tricks. And take them into account when forming an opinion of whether or not the accused has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 3. At least where I live (Ontario), Crown Attorneys regularly refuse to prosecute cases if they are of the opinion that there is no reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction. Which is functionally the same as being of the opinion that the evidence does not prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Except we know what the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was. The author claimed on the floor of the House it would incorporate the Constitutional rights against the states.
![DUE PROCESS and the Right to PRIVACY [AP Gov Review, Unit 3 Topic 9 (3.9)]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lbS9WGdFJnw/mqdefault.jpg)
![DUE PROCESS and the Right to PRIVACY [AP Gov Review, Unit 3 Topic 9 (3.9)]](/img/tr.png)
![McDonald v. Chicago, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Supreme Court Cases]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nsdhV9fDFhY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Marbury v. Madison, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Cases]](/img/n.gif)
Anyone here bc the test is tmr 😭
Don't remind me
:/
I have a test in 30 min
Same but it’s today now 😭
Now it’s my turn…. except i’m studying TWO days in advance 😈
*Gideon v Wainwright*
- incorporated the sixth amendment; based on the sixth amendment
- Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon’s decision.
- The 14th amendment equal protection clause applies to the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights to the states
- The state will only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases and thus Gideon was not entitled to representation appointed by the state
Thank you I'm using this for my test in an hour 😅
funny because these videos will spike in views come May
More like April because the AP Gov exam is gonna be the first one administered, on May 2nd. This is specifically for the 2022 school year, just to clarify for people who might see this comment in following years.
LMAO for real
Not for those of us who need this 5 lol
absolutely correct
who else is cramming?
This AP test is in the morning.... oh man
Felt
Mine is tomorrow 😢
@@nightfall4434 same bro
Haaaaang on here a minute. Why did you say that Gideon broke into a pool hall and stole money as if that's a fact? He was accused of doing so, yes. But the whole point here is that, while he was found guilty, he did not have a fair trial as he was forced to represent himself in a court of law against a trained prosecutor. He always maintained his innocence. Gideon received a second trial in 1963 with proper representation and was acquitted. This inaccuracy could have been avoided by adding "was accused of" instead of saying it is a "fact of the case" that Gideon committed a crime.
Yep, you’re absolutely right. I should have been more careful there.
Haha nerrrrrrrd
What a nerd :p
NEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDD!
(cough*) whispers* nerd*
Shouldn't it be the due process clause and not the equal protection clause based on how the 6A was applied?
No, the equal protection clause is what the state uses to selectively incorporate different amendments, and in this case, Gideon wasn't equally equipped with a lawyer who could be with him during trials.
Nevermind this comment. It should be the due process clause.
this case has an entire movie! it's actually pretty good, i watched it for my criminal investigations class!
gideon got arrested for breaking in somewhere and stealing something, but he had to act as his own lawyer.
constitutional principle: 6th amendment; criminal cases have a right to a lawyer (federal govt)
- but 14th amendement applies BOR to states
ruling
- 6th applies to states (selective incoorperation)
in our gopo class we had to do a mock supreme court trial and we were the defense. somehow convinced the supreme court to rule in favor of wainwright
prosecution was probably really bad then haha
Test coming soon! We got this!!!
🎉
yupp!!
good luck!!!
ap gov test is tmmrw! last minute review lol
How is this the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? I think I’ve been studying it backwards
Nah I looked it up, pretty sure its the Due Process Clause. I thought I was going crazy ngl
I just clicked in the vid and it help me a lot thx
Heck yes!
I wonder if there are young folks out there asking themselves..."what's a cigarette machine?"
Not gonna lie, I had to look it up
Thank you.
"Gideon vs wain... Has a right to a lawyer"
I totally forgot I had an FRQ today
10min till the test starts
What a god
Dude’s a total g
Wait gideon or teacher
Can someone help understand if this case connects to the 4th amendment at all?
If you mean 5th, then due process is talked about both there and the 14th amendment (as mentioned in the video). 4th is searches and seizures so I don't think there's a relation.
isnt the attorney thing apart of the Miranda case
why are you talking about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and not the due process clause ?
i think its both?
That's exactly what I thought... Because he was talking about incorporation and i thought that was from the due process clause
good video
I have two problems with this Supreme Court ruling. The first one is that I do not see how the 14th amendment to the US constitution can support the conclusion. The relevant part of the 14th amendment reads:
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Context: This is right after the US Civil War. In the Confederate States of America, black slaves were not CSA citizens. Neither were they citizens of the state wherein they resided. The 14th amendment is intended to be an anti-Jim Crow amendment that prevents Southern states from taking away the rights of their black citizens. Nowhere does it state that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments.
It would have been very simple for the authors of this amendment to write, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall violate amendments 1 to 10 of this constitution." But that is not what it says!
The second problem I have with this Supreme Court ruling is that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And if the judge hearing a case is not presented by the prosecutor with evidence to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then the judge should direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty." It is difficult for the prosecution to present evidence to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is, in fact, innocent. So in a properly functioning judicial system the defendant should not need a lawyer. Saying that every defendant needs a lawyer is a confession that the judicial system is profoundly dysfunctional and needs to be reformed.
It is clear the 14th amendment applies as it deals with states abridging due process rights and to your point that in a proper judicial system people shouldn’t require a lawyer is either naive or plain stupid. Courts require strict and abundant rules in order to protect the interests of all parties and the average citizen can not and should not be expected to be knowledgeable to them while their life and liberty are at stake. This poses a clear bias to prosecutors as they are well seasoned lawyers and bring the case on the governments side.
@@greysondeane4000 1. From where do you get the idea that failure to provide a government-paid lawyer is a violation of due process rights?
2. I presume that judges are aware of all the legal procedural rules and tricks. And take them into account when forming an opinion of whether or not the accused has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
3. At least where I live (Ontario), Crown Attorneys regularly refuse to prosecute cases if they are of the opinion that there is no reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction. Which is functionally the same as being of the opinion that the evidence does not prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Except we know what the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was. The author claimed on the floor of the House it would incorporate the Constitutional rights against the states.
I feel like this person just randomly stumbled on the video and is just arguing for the sake of arguing
@@megafromagem483 HAHAHHA yeah fr. cuz heimler is saving us rn
Your the best
He made a mistake it’s the due process clause
Davis Frank Williams Nancy Thomas Lisa
Si manana no me saco un 3 en apgov este calvito va a pagar pato.