The "Due Process of Law"

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee several specific rights of the accused, many of which have been discussed above. In addition to these narrowly defined rights, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also provide the broad guarantee that no one shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The “due process” guarantee includes the rights outlined in the Constitution as well as others not specifically mentioned. In fact, some observers have referred to the due process clauses as the “wild card” of the Constitution because of the opportunity they provide for the judiciary to interpret individual rights expansively. In the most simple terms, however, the due process guarantees that individuals accused of crimes will be given a fair trial. This includes the guarantee of a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and others already discussed. Other specific due process guarantees include the right of the accused to confront their accusers and to compel favorable witnesses to testify in their behalf (Sixth Amendment).

Perhaps the most significant expansion the Supreme Court has made to the due process rights of the accused came in its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. Gideon had been charged with breaking and entering and, appearing before a Florida judge, requested a court appointed attorney because he did not have the money to hire one himself. Under Florida law at the time, public defenders could only be provided for capital offense cases, cases in which the accused could be sentenced to death if found guilty.

Gideon defended himself as best he could, but was convicted nonetheless. In a later appeal of his conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s due process rights had been violated when he was not granted his request for legal counsel. Commenting on its ruling, the Court observed:

That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.

On the basis of this ruling, all persons accused of felonies must be provided court appointed attorneys if they cannot afford to hire them on their own. This ruling is emblematic of a system which extends a significant menu of rights to persons accused of crimes in the United States of America. Through these rights, the people of this nation are provided significant protections from unfair and unjust accusations and punishments.