Appendix: Florida's Points
Bruce Jacob argued nine main points, as he explains in his 2003 article:
1. Under Betts, Gideon was competent to handle his own defense because the issues in his trial were not complex and, therefore, he received a fair trial. The case simply involved the factual question of whether Gideon was the person who broke into the poolroom.
2. Historically, there was no basis for requiring the automatic appointment of counsel in all felonies. The English common law and the historical backgrounds of the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment did not support Gideon’s position.
3. Under our constitutional framework, the states had the power to determine their own rules of criminal procedure, unless clearly forbidden to do so by the Constitution. In fact, it was important that states were allowed some latitude to try to develop better ways of dealing with criminal cases.
4. The concept of due process is based on fairness and is not susceptible to being reduced to a fixed formula or hard-and-fast rule that is applicable to every case. Instead, due process is a flexible concept, depending upon the circumstances of each case. The Betts case-by-case approach was consistent with the common-law method and the concept of due process.
5. The right to automatic appointment of counsel for indigents in noncapital criminal cases had not, as of 1962, been accepted as a fundamental constitutional requirement by the states. Statutes, court rules, caselaw, and practices throughout the United States were inconsistent and not uniform.
6. Because of the wording of the Due Process Clause, to incorporate or absorb the Sixth Amendment, as construed by Johnson, into the concept of due process, would require the states to provide free counsel to indigents in misdemeanors and civil cases. This would create immense practical difficulties.
7. If the Supreme Court were to use the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for overruling Betts, the Court would have to equalize differences between rich and poor and affirmatively require that counsel be provided to indigents in appeals, post-conviction proceedings, and many other types of legal actions. The states could find it difficult to meet such requirements.
8. A rule requiring appointment of counsel for all indigent defendants would just lead to habeas petitions filed by losing defendants, arguing that they did not receive adequate or effective representation from the court-appointed attorneys.
9. If the Court decided to overrule Betts, the decision should operate prospectively, rather than retroactively.
- 1. Bruce R. Jacob, "Memories of and Reflections about Gideon v. Wainwright," Stetson Law Review XXXIII (2003): 232-233.