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.

c