The Miranda Rights are rights that are read to people when
they are arrested for a crime. One key phrase in the Miranda rights is, “You
have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed
to you.” This right to an attorney no matter of financial situation was a right
that was gained in 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon
V. Wainwright, when Clarence Earl Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court in
order to gain his right to counsel. In
the book Gideon’s Trumpet, Anthony
Lewis provides a detailed description of the case and the process of appealing
to the Supreme Court in general. This story is the detailed description of the
poor man who took his case to the Supreme Court and changed the law of the
United States.
The book
opens with Gideon petitioning the court in
forma pauperis, which means in the form of the pauper (Lewis). This type of
petition allows the prisoner to petition the Supreme Court without following
the usual protocol of filling out required forms and paying the usual fee.
Instead, the only thing the person filing the petition must do is present a
written confirmation stating that he is unable to pay the costs required by the
courts (Lewis). In addition, Rule 53
gives even more leeway to the litigant presenting the petition. Usually, the
litigant must file forty copies of the petition, however under Rule 53, an
impoverished person only needs to file one copy, and it doesn’t even have to be
printed. Gideon took this rule to heart and submitted his petition handwritten,
in pencil, on papers issued to Gideon by the prison (Lewis). In addition to his
Supreme Court petition, Gideon included his application to the Florida Supreme
Court asking for the writ of Habeas Corpus since he believed he was illegally
imprisoned and Florida’s denial of the application and the date, which proved
that Gideon was petitioning the lower court’s decision within the ninety day
deadline. Gideon chose not to give any personal information in his petition,
leaving much room for speculation about who this prisoner was (Lewis).
Clarence Gideon was a perfectly
likeable white man with a cordial personality, however he was no stranger to
the court and prison systems as he had been in and out of prisons most of his
life. At the time of his petition to the
Supreme Court, he was 51 years old and imprisoned for breaking and entering
into the Bay Harbor pool room with the intent to commit petty larceny (Lewis).
Gideon claimed his conviction lacked the “due process of law” stated in the 14th
amendment (Lewis). He made this claim on the basis that he had asked for the
aid of counsel, but was denied by the Florida state court because the law in Florida
at the time stated that the only time a person can be provided with counsel is
when they are charged with a capital offense.
Previously, the Supreme Court had stated that a person does not
automatically gain the right to counsel, however, Gideon’s case would be the
one that would reversed its previous decision (Lewis).
After introducing the reader to
the court case of Clarence Gideon, Anthony Lewis continues on to give the
reader background information on the Supreme Court by primarily describing it
as an institution. While the
characteristics of the court presented by Lewis are related to Gideon’s case,
it is also made evident that these characteristics are applicable to every
court case in history. After discussing the characteristics of the courts,
Lewis also describes how the court chooses which cases to bring to trial and
the procedures it takes in order to make that happen. Lewis also continues to examine the result of
Gideon’s petition and why he was denied counsel. Gideon’s point remained the
same as he stated that without counsel, he was not given a fair trial. This
resulted in the courts deciding to hear Gideon’s case and to question whether
or not the case of Betts v Brady should be reconsidered (Lewis). This time,
Gideon was offered counsel in Abe Fortas. The storyline continues as Gideon’s
case is recounted and it was decided that this case did not fall under the same
accounts of Betts rule. After Lewis
recounts judicial proceedings and gives a background look to the life of
Clarence Gideon, he gets around to describing the previous cases that also
addressed the issue of the right to counsel.
Following these descriptions the actual arguments of Gideon’s case were
presented, followed by the decision writing process and the importance of
effective counsel in a case of this magnitude. At the conclusion of the book,
Lewis recounts a statement about the role of the courts in the United States
and includes an epilogue which presents Gideon after his trial concludes
(Lewis).
The decision made by the Supreme
Court in Gideon V Wainwright was a decision that changed the courts and the
judicial system in the United States forever. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
delivered the decision on March 18, 1963. Within that decision the courts made
reference to previous cases which dealt with the right to counsel (Landmark
Summary). One of these was Powell v
Alabama, which declared that if charged with a capital offense, the defendant
has the right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one themselves. In
regards to felonies and trials in state courts, the decision made by the Supreme
Court in Betts v Brady declared that counsel was not automatically given unless
there was certain circumstance such as illiteracy that forced the courts to do
so (Landmark Gideon). Gideon felt that
this was unconstitutional due to the 6th and 14th amendments
which state that a defendant has the right to counsel and the right to a fair
trial with the due process of law. This
time around, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon and declared that a
defendant has the right to counsel even if they cannot afford one because it
was essential in order for the defendant to receive a fair trial under the due
process of law. This decision officially overturned the decision made in Betts
V Brady, which means that Clarence Gideon was a poor prisoner who enacted to
make the Supreme Court change its mind (Gideon v Wainwright).
The decision on Gideon V
Wainwright did not automatically over turn his conviction. Instead, he was
given the opportunity for a second trial, with an attorney to represent him.
Five months after the Supreme Court rendered it decision. Gideon’s second trial
proved that the Supreme Court had made the right decision. W. Fred Turner
defended Gideon in his trial and was able to find discrepancies in the “eye
witness testimony” given by the prosecutor’s witnesses. A person without a law degree or with minimal
understanding of the law would not have been able to find the issues with these
testimonies which eventually proved that Gideon was innocent all along (Lewis).
After the Supreme Court rendered
its decision on Gideon’s case, it had a great impact on the courts as a
whole. Instead of having to prove a
special circumstance, defendants were able to have counsel even if they could
not afford one. Gideon v Wainwright set
a precedent for future cases with similar issues so that the right to counsel
would not be withheld from any defendant, for any reason. In addition, the public defender system had
to make some changes due to the decision. Prior to the case, public defenders
were not in high demand because they were only needed in cases where defendants
were charged with a capital defense.
With public defenders in such high demand following the decision, the
state courts had to ensure that these attorneys were prepared to deliver a
successful criminal defense. If the
public defenders given to the defendants were unqualified, then there would be
no benefit to having them in the first place. As a result, Florida and other
states started to have qualified public defenders in all of the state courts (Right
to Counsel).
The decision in Gideon v.
Wainwright allowed the Supreme Court to apply Due Process under the 14th
amendment to all citizens accused of crimes, and regardless of financial
ability to pay. It overturned a previous ruling in Powell v. Alabama
which allowed courts to appoint legal counsel selectively at the state level,
declaring it unconstitutional to keep American citizens from their 6th
amendment right to legal counsel (USDOJ). It helped the Supreme Court set a precedent
for what was considered a “fair trial.” If someone was not a legal
expert, there was no way that they could know whether they should take a deal,
whether an indictment was bad, or how far they should push their case.
Because even the most savvy and intelligent person could falter when
representing their own case, it was decided that lawyers were a necessity and
not only for the people who could afford them (USDOJ).
After the Supreme Court
decision, Florida complied and hired public defenders to work in all sixteen of
its state circuit courts. For the first time everyone, would have legal
counsel, even at the state level, and even when accused of crimes that were not
under national jurisdiction. More than two thousand people were freed due
to the Gideon decision, and in order to accommodate the people who could not
defend themselves in the future, and to keep people protected equally under the
law, Public defenders needed to be appointed. The decision was also
important because it made it impossible for the courts to force someone charged
with a crime to face his accusers. There could be no prejudice based on wealth,
education, or class (Right to Counsel).
The Warren Court used Gideon v.
Wainwright to expand the rights of criminal defendants. It especially
helped in the areas of fair criminal interrogations, with a lawyer present, the
right to remain silent and not to incriminate one’s self in the absence of an
attorney, and the right for any criminal defendant to be informed of these
basic rights. It also said that a defendant could only waive his or her
right to council, by pleading guilty, no contest, or otherwise, if they were
fully aware of the charges being brought against them. This saved
countless people who were accused who might have had language barriers, or
other impedance to understanding their rights (Gideon v Wainwright).
The new right to counsel opened
up all kinds of cases and circumstances in the court room. In the state courts, while it was required
for the defendant to be given counsel if needed, some instances allowed the
courts to waive that right. For example, in the case Doughty v Maxwell which
took place in Ohio, the courts decided that a person waives their right to
counsel if they plead guilty. Some
states agreed with this and stated that a guilty plea eliminated the
defendant’s right to an attorney. Contrarily, in federal law, it is a lot more
difficult to waive the right to counsel.
In regards to the decision
itself, I believe the Supreme Court was justified in its decision in Gideon V
Wainwright. The constitution offers an
opportunity for the people to be protected in a free society void of government
oppression. This case goes along with the loose interpretation of the
constitution assuming that the original framers left the responsibility of
understanding and applying their intent based off of what was best for society
as it evolves. This was one benefit of having such a vague constitution. The
benefits of it are relevant in Gideon V wainwright because the rights expressed
in the 6th and 14th amendments did not give any specifics
as is pertained to when the right to counsel could be provided for the
defendant. I think the decision went along with the spirit of the constitution
because it gave more freedom to the people and made it harder to prosecute
defendants. As it pertains to
interpreting the amendments that were used as evidence in Gideon v Wainwright,
I agree that in order to have a fair trial, one must have an attorney. Without
an attorney, the trial is unfair because an uneducated person will have a
limited understanding of the trial proceedings and of the law in general.
Due to the forward thinking of
the Warren Court in Gideon v. Wainwright, the freedom and liberty of every
American, are protected by due process under the law. This makes it difficult to convict someone of
a crime without representation and understanding of their rights. It was easier to convict someone of a crime
and did not provide the defendant with fair opportunities so. As a result, I believe that the Supreme Court
was correct in its verdict in regards to Gideon v Wainwright and it went along
with the spirit of the constitution as it pertains to the liberties possessed
by every American.
Works Cited
"Gideon V Wainwright 1963." PBS.
PBS, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
"Landmark Cases of the U.S.
Supreme Court." Gideon v. Wainwright. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
"Landmark Cases of the U.S.
Supreme Court." How the Case Moved through the Court System. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
"Landmark Cases of the U.S.
Supreme Court." Summary of the Decision. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb.
2014.
"Right to Counsel." LII /
Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
"USDOJ: Access to Justice: Fifty Years Later: The
Legacy of Gideon v. Wainwright." USDOJ: Access to Justice: Fifty Years
Later: The Legacy of Gideon v. Wainwright. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
