A Procedural Analysis of Gideons Trumpet - Book Report/Review Example

A Procedural Analysis of Gideon’s Trumpet It’s ironic that a book about the landmark case of Gideon vs. Wainright (1963) should be titled Gideon’s Trumpet, since it is this case that would re-sound the klaxon of human rights throughout the land. Prior to the case of Gideon vs. Wainright, courts decided on a case by case basis whether an indigent defendant would be represented by legal counsel that had been appointed to them. Unfortunately, in most cases, unless a defendant could be found guilty of a capital offense, that counsel was often not appointed, leaving the defendant to his own devices. Such was the case with Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida resident who had been accused of breaking and entering into a pool hall and stealing an unknown amount of change from a vending machine. A single eye witness was all that was needed for a jury to convict Gideon of the crime, and eventually he received a five-year prison sentence. From the beginning of the case, Gideon professed his innocence and requested an attorney to represent him. Further, as an indigent, his only option for counsel was a court-appointed Student Name 2 attorney, which in his view would fulfill the Constitution’s guarantee of representation, regardless of the ability to pay. The judge in the case denied Gideon’s request for court-appointed counsel, citing the lack of a capital charge in the matter, as well as Gideon’s seeming sense of sound mind and literacy, as well as the experience he had gained in defending himself in previous brushes with the law. Not only did Gideon steadfastly maintain his innocence of the charge against him, but he continued to voice his belief that the Constitution guaranteed his right to counsel, regardless of his ability to pay. After a short trial, Gideon was convicted of the charges against him, but a short time after he began serving his term, he filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied, It is important to realize at this point that since 1942, when the Supreme Court case of Betts vs. Brady determined that the requirement of a lawyer should be determined on a case by case basis. Further, the Court held that in some circumstances, a lawyer was essential to the defendant receiving a fair trial. Without those circumstances, the Court determined that a lawyer was not needed. This opinion was an elaboration of a common English practice which allowed lawyers in only some misdemeanor cases. Even this practice was not always followed by judges who often bent the rule. This practice was modified under the rules of American jurisprudence in 1932 with the case of Powell vs. Alabama when the Court held that the right of the accused to have a lawyer was essential as a safeguard of liberty, but left to the individual states to determine when the rule would be applied. Student Name 3 It is also important to note that ever since handing down the judgment of Powell vs. Alabama, there had been considerable controversy over this opinion, with many jurists concerned over the right of every defendant receiving a fair trial with legal representation, regardless of their ability to afford legal counsel of their own. After Gideon’s appeal was rejected without opinion by the Florida State Supreme Court, he filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously approved a motion to hear the Gideon’s case. The author of Gideon’s Trumpet, Anthony Lewis, explained that when Gideon filed his appeal, he submitted a handwritten document that explained his case: that it “just was not fair” that he had no access to a lawyer at his trial, which in his opinion he was entitled to under the provision of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Abe Fortas, who would later join the Court as an Associate Justice, argued Gideon’s case. The Supreme Court found, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Hugo L. Black, that the guarantee of legal counsel provided by the U.S. Constitution in federal criminal cases should be interpreted to include indigent defendants in state criminal trials. Further, in that opinion, Black wrote, “[R]eason and reflection require us to recognize that in our … system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided.” Black further noted that governments hire lawyers to represent the cases of the people against defendants, so this is a “strong indication …that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.” Student Name 4 After the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Gideon was retried for his crime, only this time with an attorney representing him. In this case, Gideon’s attorney was able to counter the state’s case by presenting evidence that cast doubts on the veracity of the state’s evidence. In this trial, Gideon was found not guilty. It is also important to note that even with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gideon vs. Wainright, the case continued to have points of contention, then as well as now. In Gideon vs. Wainright, the Court left unclear whether the same rule established for indigent defendants facing felony charges are afforded the same right to legal counsel as when they face other charges, most notably, misdemeanors. In 1972, in the Supreme Court case of Argersinger vs. Hamlin, held that the same right to appointed counsel for indigent persons accused of a felony were entitled to the same counsel when charged with a misdemeanor unless the defendant makes a “knowing and intelligent waiver” of that right. Gideon vs. Wainright was only the opening salvo of a series of cases with regards to the right of accused individuals to legal counsel, whether they can afford representation or not. As was also pointed out in Gideon’s Trumpet, justices argued over when in the chain of events in a criminal trial does the right to legal counsel begin. For example, should the right to counsel begin with interrogation, arrest, arraignment, etc.? From these cases sprung others that elaborated on these rights such as Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), which included the right to be informed of a defendant’s rights upon arrest. This ruling, of course, was the beginning of a suspect’s “Miranda Rights” upon arrest. Student Name 5 More cases followed, including lesser known cases such as Griffin vs. Illinois (1956) which allowed criminal defendants access to trial transcripts filing an appeal. In all of these cases, the Supreme Court did honor one important overarching principle when it acknowledged that resources, even in a country that enjoys such abundance as ours, still suffers from inequality. Further, with unequal access to resources, especially in light of the adversarial nature of legal procedures, it is critical that those who have been accused of a crime, regardless of how serious, must be provided effective legal counsel, whether they have the means of securing that counsel on their own or if it is appointed without cost to them by authorities. The influence of Gideon’s trumpet will sound for many years to come. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy remarked about the case, “If an obscure convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed.” Student Name 6 Works Cited Lewis, Anthony. Gideon’s Trumpet. New York: Vintage. 1989. Print. Read More