Need Writing Help? Our writing specialists are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with an online tutor below or click here to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.
The 1942 Supreme Court case of Betts v. Brady centered on Smith Betts, a poor person indicted on burglary in Maryland. He had no money to hire a lawyer, so he requested that one be made available to him by the state. A previous case had concluded that defendants had the right to an attorney. However, the judge refused. Betts pleaded not guilty, served as his own counsel, and was found guilty. He held onto his conviction that he was entitled to a lawyer and appealed the case. When it reached the Supreme Court, the question the Court faced was, “Does refusing a poor person an attorney violate the Constitution?” The Supreme Court ruled that it did not, that the state could not prevent a defendant from using an attorney but it was not obligated to provide one.
Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Betts v. Brady and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).
Based on the constitutional clause identified in (A), explain why the facts of Gideon v. Wainwright led to a different holding than the holding in Betts v. Brady.
Explain how the holding in Betts v. Brady relates to the process of selective incorporation. A good response should:
Identify a similarity or difference in the Supreme Court case, as specified in the question (0-1 point).
Provide prompted factual information from the specified required Supreme Court case (0-1 point) and explain how or why that information from the specified required Supreme Court case is relevant to the non-required Supreme Court case described in the question (0-1 point)
Describe or explain an interaction between the holding in the non-required Supreme Court case and a relevant political institution, behavior, or process (0-1 point).