Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law: what amendment? what italicized case was used? and any other procedures.

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

Gideon v. Wainwright

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT 372 U.S. 335,. 83 S. Ct. 792,. 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) [Citations and footnotes omitted] [Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom, an offense that was a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, he asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The judge denied Gideon's request, advising him that under Florida law appointment of counsel was available only for defendants charged with a capital offense. Placed on trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layperson. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short closing argument emphasizing his inno- cence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and sentenced Gideon to serve ve years in the state prison. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon's habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him his constitutional rights] Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. 72 21 . . . Since 1942, when Betts v. Brain; was decided by a divided Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari. Since Gideon was proceeding infanna pauper-is, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: \"Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?\" The facts upon which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are strikingly like the facts upon which Gideon here bases his federal constitutional claim. Betts was indicted for rob- bery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that it was not the practice in that county to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He then pleaded not guilty, had witnesses summoned, cross-ex- amined the State's witnesses, examined his own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sen- tenced to eight years in prison. Like Gideon, Betts sought release by habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts was denied any relief, and on review this Court afrmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint coun- sel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause