Need help ASAP In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court overturned their previous ruling in Betts v. Brady that states were not required to provide counsel.What Constitutional amendment was interpreted in both of these cases?
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court overturned their previous ruling in Betts v. Brady that states were not required to provide counsel-(c) The Sixth Constitutional amendment was interpreted in both of these case
Explanation:
The sixth Amendment states that the right of counsel is the fundamental right for a free trial
As per the sixth Amendment in the Gideon v. Wainwright,Gideon applead to the court to provide a legal lawyer as he was too poor to pay the fee of the lawyer .So the Sixth amendment was passed,which guarantees the right of counsel is the fundamental right for a free trial.
But in the Betts v. Brady case the Court overruled the the sixth Amendment act which which guarantees the right of counsel is the fundamental right for a free trial.
So , in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court overturned their previous ruling in Betts v. Brady that states were not required to provide counsel-(c) The Sixth Constitutional amendment was interpreted in both of these case
