In which decision did the Supreme Court hold that defendants have the right to legal counsel even if they cannot afford one?

• A. Gideon v. Wainwright
• B. Mapp v. Ohio
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. United States v. Leon

Answer: (A)

The main idea is the right to a legal counsel for defendants who cannot afford one, and how that right is protected in state criminal cases. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ruled that when a defendant in a criminal trial cannot afford an attorney, the state must provide one at no cost. This extended the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel to all criminal prosecutions in state courts by applying it through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. It overturned Betts v. Brady, which allowed states to limit the right to counsel in certain circumstances, and asserted that a fair trial depends on having effective legal representation, especially for those without means. The decision emphasizes the incorporation principle, ensuring that fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights bind the states as well as the federal government. For context, other listed cases handle different protections—Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, Miranda v. Arizona concerns informing suspects of their rights, and United States v. Leon addresses the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule—so Gideon is specifically about guaranteeing counsel to the indigent.