Deck 18: Sample Video Worksheets

Question 1

Did Abe Fortas think traffic offenders should be entitled to court-appointed counsel?

Answer 1

Abe Fortas, who served as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court from 1965 to 1969, is perhaps best known for his role in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.While Gideon v. Wainwright dealt specifically with felony cases, the question of whether traffic offenders should be entitled to court-appointed counsel touches on a broader interpretation of the right to counsel. Abe Fortas did not directly address the issue of traffic offenders in his opinions, as this specific question was not the focus of the cases he dealt with during his time on the Supreme Court.
However, the principles established in Gideon v. Wainwright were later expanded in other cases. For example, in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment means that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony unless they were represented by counsel at their trial.
Traffic offenses can range from minor infractions to serious misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the nature of the offense. For minor infractions, typically, there is no entitlement to court-appointed counsel because these offenses do not carry a risk of jail time. However, if a traffic offense is serious enough that it could result in imprisonment, under the principles established by the Supreme Court's decisions, a defendant may be entitled to court-appointed counsel.
In summary, while Abe Fortas did not specifically address the issue of traffic offenders and court-appointed counsel, the legal principles he helped establish in Gideon v. Wainwright and the subsequent expansion of those principles in later cases suggest that traffic offenders could be entitled to court-appointed counsel if they face the possibility of incarceration and cannot afford an attorney.

Question 2

How did Abe Fortas come to represent Gideon?

Answer 2

not answered

Question 3

What was the legal issue in the case?

Answer 3

not answered

Question 4

Why did the Court rule the way that it did?

Question 5

Which Constitutional Amendment or Amendments were involved in this case?

Question 6

Which Constitutional Amendment formed the basis for this Court's decision?

Question 7

What did the judge rule regarding Gideon's motion for change of venue?

Question 8

What was the name of the chief witness against Gideon at the trial?

Question 9

What is the name of the attorney who represented Briggs?

Question 10

Did Gideon have an attorney in his second trial? If so, what was his name, and who paid for him?
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
(Video is available commercially)
To the extent possible from watching the film, answer the following questions.

Question 11

Describe the judicial history of the case (i.e., in what court did it begin and in what appellate courts was it heard?).

Question 12

Who represented Gideon at the first trial?

Question 13

What was the offense with which Gideon was originally charged with?

Question 14

Give a brief factual description of what led to this lawsuit.

Question 15

What was the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when this case was first brought to the court?

Question 16

What rule of law (or holding) do we get from the Supreme Court's ruling in this case?

Question 17

Was Briggs the plaintiff or the defendant?

Question 18

What was the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when this case was decided?

Question 19

What was the jury verdict in the retrial of Gideon?

Question 20

Why did Gideon think that a retrial after the Supreme Court decision was illegal?

Question 21

Who wrote the Court's opinion in this matter?