Talk:Gideon v. Wainwright

message: Gideon is quoted as telling the trial judge that the United States Supreme Court says he is entitled to counsel.  If Gideon said that, then he was either lying or misinformed.  The ruling Supreme Court precedent at that time was Betts v. Brady, which held exactly opposite to Gideon's contention, and which had to be expressly overruled in order to provide Gideon with the relief he was seeking.  Is it possible that Gideon said the United States Constitution guaranteed him the right to counsel?John Paul Parks (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Gideon Quoted Correctly? 

message: Hey all.  I made some corrections to the nature of the references, turning textual numbers into the superscript links typical of citations.   However, I have not checked that the sources matche up correctly with the citation points originally in the document, and there were several references in the "References" section that were not cited anywhere.  I have left in the uncited references in hopes that someone else will know what to do with them.
: These sources may be useful to add to the article - 
*http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-americans-lost-right-counsel-50-years-after-gideon
*http://yalelawjournal.org/issue/issue/volume-122-issue-8-june-2013 (vol. 122/ no. 8 / pp. 2106-2720) June 2013 - "Gideon effect" symposium - SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) 10:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I don't see any reason to merge with the Gideon article. This is about a court case, the other is about an individual. --agr 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping biography and case details seperate is a normal procedure on Wikipedia. (See Roe V. Wade and Sarah Weddington). Zapping the merge tags, since it was never raised on either talk page so I doubt there's any real call for it. --Barberio 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Who is this Wainwright person Gideon is versing? The article never explains who this guy is. Is he from the original case (his burglary sentance) or from the violation of due process case (in the United States Supreme Court)? Carsinmotion 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wainwright?

message: Can a citation be added for the 1999 study mentioned that states that defendants represented by private attorneys fared better than those represented by appointed counsel? Who did it? How can it be looked up or verified? It also only refers to felonies- did it also look at misdemeanors? It also doesn't mention jail times. Did those with private counsel receive more or less jail time? 
If a citation cannot be added, then I think the study should be deleted, as it cannot be verified. 
Talmquist 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite for 1999 study 

message: I cleaned up the article a little with regard to the citing of Amendments to the Constitution. It is technically incorrect to put in the lead paragraph that Gideon's Fourteenth and Sixth Amendment rights were found to have been violated. In actuality his right to cousel under the Sixth Amendment has been violated. The Fourteenth Amendment was simply used to apply the Sixth Amendment to the states.
:
I also removed multiple wikilinks. The Amendments only need to be linked once within the given article.
:
Skyler1534 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 what about respondent's argument
Wikipedia has policies against youtube. It may possibly be used if you legally signed over the ownership of the youtube clip to the GNU Free Documentation License. However, that is a legal process. Your say-so is not enough.  –Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments 

message: Someone changed the article to say that a burglary occurred when before it said a larceny occurred. Since he was only accused of "having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor" I do not think this is burglary although I am not sure whether the definition of burglary under Florida law includes an intention to commit a misdemeanor (under commonlaw it requires an intent to commit a felony). I changed it back, but if someone more knowledgeable about Florida than I knows that it was a burglary, I invite a correction.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2008 FL statutes  define burglary as "entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain" for offenses committed before 2001; and the 1997 version  also defines burglary this way - there appears to be no felony requirement. It's rather hard to find 1963 FL laws. However, certain websites like  refer to the crime as burglary. It seems likely that the crime is indeed a burglary, so I'm changing it back. Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Burglary v. Larceny

message: The first part of 'History' is vandalized. It is written over some previous material. I spotted another part a paragraph or two down. Some original text may have been deleted and I'm not too good at this, so I'm leaving it for now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.11.59 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Vandalism 

message: Dean Bruce Jacob would like request that under "Facts and prior history" in the last paragraph the second sentence to read "Opposing, Bruce Jacob, who later became Dean of the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer and Dean of the Stetson University College of law, argued the case for the State of Florida" rather than "Opposing, Bruce Jacob, who later became Dean of Stetson University College of Law, argued the case for the State of Florida." If you have any questions you can contact Bruce Jacob at email redacted Thank you for your help.
Aeells (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015 

message: There is a photo (or a scanned copy) of the petition.  But I can only see the first page.  Is there more?  Where is the rest of it?  Can it be included?   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handwritten petition 

message: When Gideon decided to file a petition. He first sent a letter to the Florida Supreme Court claiming that his rights had been violated because a counsel had not been appointed for him. His petition was denied. But in this artical it says he just sent a letter to the US supremem court, should i add the missing information or I missed something? Csar00 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, i will be adding it to the article shortly. Csar00 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida Supreme Court