Passage 1 Court opinion

On March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The landmark decision found that individuals who are charged with a crime have the right to have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford to hire one on their own.

from Gideon v. Wainwright Majority Opinion
by Justice Hugo Black

Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. 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.

Passage 2

Editorial from a newspaper

from Gideon v. Wainwright, 50 Years Later
by Sally Smith

In the 50 years since the landmark Supreme Court case, has the Gideon ruling become just another underfunded mandate? Is the right to an attorney for those who cannot afford one more of a technicality than a reality? Yes, technically, those who need an attorney are appointed one, but does that mean they are getting the representation they deserve? Public defenders are notoriously overworked and underpaid. In some areas, public defenders are being asked to juggle between 180 and 300 cases at a time. This is catastrophic for their clients—American citizens who are not getting the counsel they have been guaranteed by our nation's highest court. A recent study showed that public defenders spend less than six minutes per case at hearings where clients plead guilty. Is the six minutes the attorney spends on the case really enough to make sure that the defendant gets a fair trial? I don't think anyone would say that it is. So what is the problem? The problem is an indefensible lack of funding by our state and local governments. The full funding of public defenders' offices must become a priority at all levels.
9
How does the language of the court opinion differ from that of the editorial from the newspaper?
A.
The language of the court opinion is more remorseful and apologetic.
B.
The language of the court opinion is more argumentative and strong.
C.
The language of the court opinion is more plain and straightforward.
D.
The language of the court opinion is more elevated and sophisticated.