Which right of a defendant is at issue in Giden v Wainwright?
right to public trial
right to an attorney
right to a jury trial
right to remain silent

Right to an attorney

Explanation:

This case was to determine if everyone has equal rights in the court of law, specifically the right to be awarded a counsel if not able to afford one.  Clarence Earl Gideon, a drifter was arrested for breaking and entering and petty larceny. Clarence couldn't afford a counsel and was not appointed one, so he had to  defend himself and subsequently lost. He had to serve 5 years in jail,  Gideon argued in his appeal that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated. The decision was announced as being unanimous in favor of Gideon, saying  “if desired by a defendant who could not afford to hire counsel, was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, binding on the states, and essential for a fair trial and due process of law regardless of the circumstances of the case.”

no statements but ok.

the statement that best describes the idea of manifest destiny that was used in the 19th century would be that "it was fate that the united states would continue to  expand westward," since people thought the us was "destined" to do so. 

i think it’s a i hope that right : )