Which case guaranteed the right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney?

Which case guaranteed the right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Terry v. Ohio
• D. Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer: (D)

The main concept here is the right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Gideon v. Wainwright established that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to state courts as well. This means that if a defendant is unable to pay for a lawyer, the government must provide one at no cost. The ruling overturned the prior idea from Betts v. Brady that counsel was required only in special circumstances, and it extended the right to all criminal prosecutions, ensuring fair trial standards across jurisdictions. Other cases in the list deal with different protections: Mapp v. Ohio focused on the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, Miranda v. Arizona on notifying suspects of their rights during custodial interrogation, and Terry v. Ohio on the authority of police to stop and frisk someone with reasonable suspicion. None of these establish the right to a court-appointed attorney for indigent defendants, which is why Gideon v. Wainwright is the correct tie-in for this question.

The main concept here is the right to counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Gideon v. Wainwright established that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to state courts as well. This means that if a defendant is unable to pay for a lawyer, the government must provide one at no cost. The ruling overturned the prior idea from Betts v. Brady that counsel was required only in special circumstances, and it extended the right to all criminal prosecutions, ensuring fair trial standards across jurisdictions.

Other cases in the list deal with different protections: Mapp v. Ohio focused on the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, Miranda v. Arizona on notifying suspects of their rights during custodial interrogation, and Terry v. Ohio on the authority of police to stop and frisk someone with reasonable suspicion. None of these establish the right to a court-appointed attorney for indigent defendants, which is why Gideon v. Wainwright is the correct tie-in for this question.