Facts and Case Summary：

Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335  (1963)

事实和案例摘要：吉迪恩诉温赖特

《联邦最高法院判例汇编》第372 卷第335 页(1963 年)

      Facts

Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.

事实：

克劳伦斯·厄尔·吉迪恩不太可能成为男主角。他是个受过八年级教育的人，上中学时离家出走。他成年后早先大都在流浪中度过，曾因非暴力犯罪而进出监狱。吉迪恩被指控为破门闯入，带有轻盗窃罪意图。

Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit petty larceny, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

根据佛罗里达州法律，该行为属于重罪。审判时，吉迪恩在没有辩护律师的情形下出庭。在开庭时，他要求法官为他指定律师，因为他请不起律师。审判法官拒绝了吉迪恩的请求，因为佛罗里达法只允许为被指控为死罪的贫困被告人指定律师。

At trial, Gideon represented himself–he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

在审判中，吉迪恩为自己辩护———他向陪审团作了开场陈述，对控方证人交叉询问，提出自己辩护的证人，拒绝自我作证，并提出论据强调自己的清白。尽管吉迪恩付诸努力，陪审团最终认定他有罪，他被判处五年监禁。

Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon’s petition.

吉迪恩向佛罗里达州最高法院提交了人身保护令申请，寻求解除对他的指控。在申请中, 吉迪恩质疑指控和刑罚，理由是审判法官拒绝指定律师侵犯了他的宪法权利。佛罗里达州最高法院驳回了吉迪恩的请求。

Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.

吉迪恩接着向美国最高法院提交了一份手写的申请。最高法院同意审理此案，解决宪法第六修正案所保障的获得律师服务权利是否适用于州法院被告人的问题。

Procedure:

Lower Courts: Bay County Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

Lower Court Ruling: The trial judge denied Gideon’s request for a court-appointed attorney because, under Florida law, counsel could only be appointed for a poor defendant charged with a capital offense. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and denied all relief.

程序：

下级法院：贝伊县巡回法院，佛罗里达州第十四巡回法院

下级法院裁决：初审法官驳回了吉迪恩要求法院指定律师的请求，因为根据佛罗里达州法律，只能为被控犯有死罪的贫困被告人指定律师。佛罗里达州最高法院与初审法院意见一致，并拒绝了所有的救济。

Issue:

A prior decision of the Court’s, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted Gideon’s petition for a writ of certiorari – that is, agreed to hear Gideon’s case and review the decision of the lower court – in order to determine whether Betts should be reconsidered.

争点问题：

法院先前的一项裁决，即贝茨诉布雷迪（《美国最高法院判例汇编》第316 卷，第455页(1942 年)），认为拒绝为在州法院被控犯有重罪的贫困被告人指定律师，并不一定违反《宪法》第十四条修正案的正当程序条款。法院同意了吉迪恩的诉讼请求，即同意审理吉迪恩的案件和复审下级法院的裁决，以便确定是否应重新审议贝茨案。

Ruling:

Reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady.

Argued: January 15, 1963

Decided: March 18, 1963

Unanimous Decision: Justice Black (who dissented in Betts) wrote the opinion of the court. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions.

裁决：

撤销原判并发回重审。法院一致推翻了贝茨诉布雷迪案的先例。

争论：1963 年1 月15 日

决定：1963 年3 月18 日

一致裁决：布莱克法官（他在贝茨案裁决中提出了异议）写了法院判决意见。道格拉斯法官、克拉克法官和哈伦法官各自写了同意意见。

Reasoning:

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”He further wrote that the“noble ideal”of“fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”

论证：

法院认为，《宪法》第六修正案对律师的保障是公平审判必不可少的一项基本权利，因此，通过《宪法》第十四修正案的正当程序条款适用于各州。布莱克法官在推翻初审法院判决时说：“理性和反思要求我们认识到，在我们对抗式刑事司法制度中，任何被迫进入法院的人，如果因为他太贫穷而雇不起律师，就不能保证公平审判，除非为他提供律师”。他进一步写道，“如果被控犯罪的穷人不得不在没有律师协助的情形下面对其控诉人”，“在公正法庭公平审判，在法律面前被告一律平等……”的“崇高理想”就无法实现。

After the Supreme Court：

The Supreme Court's ruling did not mean that Gideon could automatically go free. It meant he got a new trial this time, with a free lawyer assigned to him. Gideon asked for a lawyer named Fred Turner, who had a very good reputation, and the judge agreed. With Turner arguing the case, it took jurors less than an hour to find Gideon not guilty. Gideon was set free that day.

最高法院裁决以后：

最高法院的裁决并不意味着吉迪恩会自动获得自由。这意味着他得到了新的审判。这次，由一位无偿服务的律师协助他。吉迪恩请求一位叫弗雷德·特纳的律师，他的名声很好，法官同意了其请求。特纳为此案辩护，陪审员们不到一个小时就认定吉迪恩无罪。吉迪恩当天就被释放了。

The same year Gideon was decided, the Florida state legislature set up their public defender system. Four years after Gideon, in a case called Burget v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gideon decision applied "retroactively." The Gideon decision still guarantees free counsel to every poor individual charged with a crime in the United States. However, many legal scholars agree that there are many problems with the public defender system in the 21st century. Because of these problems, they argue, many poor defendants are not getting the rights the Gideon decision gave them.

就在吉迪恩案被判决的同一年，佛罗里达州立法机构建立了其公设辩护人制度。在吉迪恩案判决四年后，在一个名为伯吉特诉德克萨斯州的案件中，最高法院裁决吉迪恩案的判决“有追溯既往的效力”。“吉迪恩案的判决仍然保证了在美国被指控犯罪的每位穷人都能获得无偿的律师服务。”然而，许多法学家认为，在21 世纪，公设辩护人制度存在许多问题。他们认为，由于这些问题，许多可怜的被告并未得到吉迪恩案判决赋予他们的权利。

According to these scholars, one of the biggest problems with today's public defender programs is that they do not get enough money from the government to deal with the number of poor defendants they have to represent. This means:

A. Programs cannot hire enough lawyers.

B.Public defenders have to take on many different cases at a time.When lawyers have too many cases, they have very little time to work on each case, and they cannot do their jobs as well.

C.These lawyers are not paid well, and because their jobs are also verystressful, many lawyers do not stay in public defender jobs for long.

D.Some public defenders have very little experience in criminal law.

E.Many poor defendants are given free counsel at trial, then later are told they have to pay for the lawyer's services.

根据这些学者的观点，如今公设辩护人项目最大的问题之一是，他们没有从政府那里得到足够的资金来处理其必须代表的许多贫困被告人。这意味着：

A.该项目不能雇请足够多的律师。

B.公设辩护人必须同时处理许多不同案件。当律师的案子太多时，他们就没有多少时间处理每个案子，也不能做好自己的工作。

C.给这些律师付费不多，而且由于其工作压力也很大，许多律师不会在公设辩护人工作中坚持很久。

D.有些公设辩护人在刑事法方面经验很少。

E.许多贫穷的被告人在审判时被提供无偿服务的律师，然后被告知他们必须为律师服务支付费用。

When public defenders cannot do their jobs well because they have too many cases,have too little experience, or are too overwhelmed, defendants get more severe punishments when they are convicted.

当公设辩护人因案件过多、经验太少、或负担过重而不能做好工作时，被告被定罪后会受到更严厉的刑罚。