In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that states must ...

[tatyanajohnson]

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide attorneys for individuals charged with crimes who are financially unable to afford a lawyer. The Court based its ruling on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
 
  Suppose a state decided to provide attorneys to indigent defendants only for cases when the punishment could exceed a year in prison. Otherwise, poor defendants must defend themselves. Would the state's policy be constitutionally permissible? a. Yes, because states may grant their citizens fewer rights than those incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
  b. Yes, because the Constitution permits states considerable leeway to interpret the rulings of the Supreme Court.
  c. No, because the state's policy would violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.
  d. No, because the state's policy would contradict the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison.
  e. No, because the state's policy would contradict the Supreme Court's decision in Barron v. Baltimore.

Question 2

Why is the Miranda warning sometimes called the poor person's Fifth Amendment?
 
  a. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to poor citizens.
  b. Without the Miranda warning, poor citizens would not be protected by the Fifth Amendment.
  c. It is assumed that the warning is less critical for those who are wealthier and better educated.
  d. Without the warning, the Double Jeopardy Clause would not apply.
  e. Prior to the Miranda warning, there was no legal protection now provided by the warning.

[yotaSR5]

Answer to Question 1

c

Answer to Question 2

c