On guy was driving home drunk, he spied a roadblock up ahead and realized that if he went through, he would surely loose his licence. He came up with the amazing plan to make a u-turn and eveade the trap. In his drunkenness however, he went into the ditch, took out a mailbox and got stuck. Now instead of being charged solely with D.U.I., he is being charged with1: D.U.I. 2: Attempting to evade Police and 3:Destruction of private property.                                                                                                                    

On the flip side, there was a lucky S.O.B. who was pulled over for D.U.I., he had admitted to smoking Marijuana shortly before attempting to drive home. But luckily for him, when they got to the police station, his blood test came up negative. Now he is only being charged with a misdemeanor possesion. In other words: He just saved $10,000 dollars or more, and kept some very nasty things off his record.                  

(With this additude, and the cost of a D.U.I. averaging $10,000, the D.O.T. treasury is sure to be overflowing soon!)

I wasn’t so lucky, I was found guilty on all charges and now owe a $180 dollar fine, and must attend a $75 dollar defensive driving class. With the price of gas already through the roof, this on top of it makes me mad that the car was ever invented. Wait, I take that back, I love cars. It just makes me want to crawl into some dark cave and die. I am now $255 poorer, which means I have to tell the gf no more dates till I get paid at the end of the month. Oh well, life goes on.

The reason lawyers exist is because some people cannot understand or interpret our laws. Lawyers study for years, and can only assume the practice after taking an oath that they will do what ever they can to defend their client, guilty or not. The sixthamendment stands to grant those of us who do not have a very good understanding of the process of law, withsomeone who has a very thorough understanding process of law. By not appointing the accused with proper counsel, we run the risk of wrongly convicting an innocent person that could not properly represent themselves in court. The cartoon below depicts the cross-examination of a defendant without a lawyer.

            In the February, 1963 trial of Gideon vs. Wainwright, Clarence Gideon was denied counsel by the state of Florida on the basis that he was not being charged witha capitol offence. Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Pool Hall on 3 June, 1961, after a witness claimed to have seen him inside the building. Guilty or not, notes from the trial claim he did a poor job of representing himself. He was then sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. While there he researched the Bill of Rights in the prison library, and in turn filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of his sixth amendment right. Does the constitution make a distinction between capitol and non-capitol offences? By making this claim, was the court denying Mr. Gideon his sixth amendment right? What are the consequences of denying someone their sixth amendment right? Read on to find out.

 (This undated photo of Clarence Gideon was probably taken around the time of his trial.)

            The Supreme Court Found no such discrepancy upheld by Florida law between Capitol and Non-Capitol offences. And therefore through the due process of law granted by the sixth amendment, and up-held by the fourteenth amendment, granted him another trial

and proper counsel to represent him. With the proper counsel of W. Fred Turner, Gideon was re-tried and acquitted.

The following excerpt is the ruling of the supreme court as delivered by Justice Black.

 (This is a Photo of Justice Hugo Black. Mr. Justice Black is considered to be one of the most influential justices of the 20th century.)