A United States citizen accused of crime upon American soil retained no constitutional rights or procedural protections of any value during the criminal investigation, trial, appellate and habeas processes on the sole account of his indigency and ignorance of the law, which in turn resulted in an unconstitutional conviction, and a decade of unlawful confinement.

At what point does the absence of government protection breach the limits of constitutional boundary?

If the indigent layman is afforded no meaningful protections of the law amidst the criminal processes by either the government or his appointed protectors (attorneys) is it not as if he held no procedural or constitutional rights to begin with?

At what point does the absence of government protection breach the limits of constitutional boundary?