DOCSLIB.ORG

GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT the Right to an Attorney

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT the Right to an Attorney GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT The Right to An Attorney (Prepared by Millie Aulbur, Director of Citizenship Education, The Missouri Bar) Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Explain the Sixth Amendment right of a person accused of a crime to have legal counsel. 2. Summarize and explain how the Gideon v. Wainright case has impacted the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for people who cannot afford to pay an attorney. 3. Identify and explain how court cases subsequent to Gideon v. Wainright have further defined what the right to counsel means. 4. Discuss why having effective assistance of counsel is so important for a fair trial. 5. Explain how the 14th Amendment was a very important factor in the Gideon case. 6. Discuss the purpose of the Missouri Public Defender’s Office and why it is appropriate for taxpayers to fund this program. The Story of Gideon v. Wainright (Excerpted partially from The Missouri Bar publication, Precedent. For the entire article go to www.mobar.org, publications, Precedent.) The case that would forever change the legal landscape regarding the rights of criminal defendants had a very ordinary beginning. During the early morning hours of June 3, 1961, someone broke into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida, and smashed both the jukebox and the cigarette machine and stole money from both of them. A witness told police that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the pool room that morning. When the police found Gideon, he had a pint of wine and some change in his pocket. Gideon – a petty thief and frequent inmate in state and federal institutions – was charged in a Florida state court with breaking and entering. Unable to afford an attorney, Gideon requested that the trial court provide him with legal representation as guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The trial judge denied the request. Gideon ultimately represented himself and was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. While in prison, Gideon submitted a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional because he was not provided with defense counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition on the grounds that the United States Supreme Court had never held that there was a right to have counsel appointed in every felony case In January 1962, Gideon filed a five-page, handwritten petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court accepted the writ and appointed notable Washington, D.C. attorney Abe Fortas – who himself would be ap- pointed to the Court in 1965 – to represent Gideon. Ultimately, the question before the Court was a simple one: Did the Florida court’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? The court had already answered this question for criminal defendants in a federal court in the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). In that case, the courts held that due process required a criminal defendant to have a lawyer. However, in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the court declined to extend this right to defendants in state courts. 1 On March 18, 1963, Justice Hugo Black, who had vigorously dissented in Betts v. Brady, wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court that the states, as with the federal government, are bound to comply with the Sixth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Thus, the states must provide defense lawyers, if necessary, because lawyers are essential to ensuring that accused persons are provided with a fair trial. As a result of the Court’s decision, Gideon’s conviction was rendered unconstitutional and he was re-tried in a Florida state court with the assistance of counsel and acquitted of the charges against him. Gideon’s Missouri Connection Clarence Gideon was born in Hannibal, Missouri, and was convicted at age 15 of stealing clothes in Ralls County. He eventually served time in the Missouri State Penitentiary for robbery, burglary and larceny. When he got out of prison, he moved to Texas where he also served time for a crime not specified in the records. After he was acquitted of the Florida charges that were the subject of the Gideon case, there is no record that Mr. Gideon ever committed another crime. He died in 1972 in Florida and he is buried in Hannibal, MO. What does the Sixth Amendment Say In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Underlining added.) The Role of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Gideon case One of the most difficult concepts for 21st century Americans to grasp is the idea that the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Although on its face, it appears the 14th Amendment requires that state governments are bound by the Bill of Rights, the implementation of the guarantees in the 14th Amendment did not start until the 1920s. And then the Court, instead of holding that the states were bound by all of the rights in the United States Constitution, decided case by case which right or protection the states must honor. This process is called incorporation. The Gideon case is the case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel although the Court had been asked to so earlier in the Betts case. (See above.) For an excellent explanation and list of what cases dealt with which rights, go to the Bill of Rights Institute website at http://my.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=478 . Note: The history of the 14th Amendment will be the subject for a future Constitution Day program. Missouri’s Attorney General and the Gideon Case. Florida Assistant Attorney General Bruce R. Jacob was given the task of defending Florida’s decision not to appoint Gideon a lawyer. Jacob, aware of the very real possibility that the Court could use the Gideon case to overturn its own ruling in Betts, prepared a letter to the attorneys general of every state to make them aware of the potential impact of the ruling and asking them to support the State of Florida with an amicus brief. In that letter, Jacobs advised them that a decision to overturn Betts “would infringe on the right of the states to determine their own rules of criminal procedure.” Two other states – Alabama and North Carolina – submitted amicus 2 briefs on Florida’s behalf. However, 22 other attorneys general – including Missouri Attorney General Thomas F. Eagleton – filed amicus briefs in support of Gideon. Subsequent Development of the Right to Counsel After Gideon, the court continued to define exactly what the right to counsel means and Missouri took appropriate actions to comply with the court’s holdings: Date Case Name Holding and significance 1963 Douglas v. California Indigent criminal defendants are entitled to appointed counsel on appeal IF the state provides for an automatic appeal in criminal cases. Missouri does. 1964 Escobedo v. Illinois The court held that a suspect in custody has the right to an attorney during a police interrogation because of the possibility that a suspect may incriminate himself, which violates the 5th Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. Some constitutional scholars call this a 5th Amendment right to counsel. 1966 Miranda v. Arizona A suspect must be advised of his right to counsel upon his arrest. This case changed how law enforcement officers treat a suspect. 1967 In re Gault The right to appointed counsel is extended to juvenile defendants. 1982 The Missouri Public Instead of appointed counsel, who may or may not Defender’s Office is have criminal defense experience, indigent criminal established by the defendants will be represented by lawyers whose sole Missouri General job is criminal defense. This office also handles Assembly. criminal appeals. 1984 Strickland v. The court holds that the right to counsel means the Washington right to effective assistance of counsel. 2008 Rothgerry v. Gillespie The right to counsel begins with the first court County appearance of a criminal defendant. 3 Teaching Gideon There are a number of outstanding resources for teaching the Gideon case, which provide background information, lesson plans and interesting activities: 1. The United States Courts website at www.uscourts.gov under the Educational Resources tab and then under the Constitution Activities tab. 2. Streetlaw’s Landmark Cases website at www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases . 3. The Constitution Project at www.constitutionproject.org . DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY AND ENRICHMENT 1. The Supreme Court of the United States had held prior to the Gideon case that there were circumstances where a criminal defendant should have appointed counsel if the defendant could not afford an attorney. Look at these cases and discuss how they are similar or different from Gideon: • Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 42 (1932) • Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) • See Justice Hugo Black’s dissent in Betts v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gideon's Trumpet (Book Review)
    St. John's Law Review Volume 39 Number 1 Volume 39, December 1964, Number Article 17 1 Gideon's Trumpet (Book Review) Morris David Forkosch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [ VOL. 39 the lawyer can and should do about them. In all, there is much helpful material here for the student who envisions himself behind the desk as a practicing lawyer, and for the member of the Bar who takes time to consider his professional approach. LSTER E. DENONN * GIDEON'S TRUMPET. By Anthony Lewis. New York: Random House, 1964. Pp. 262. $4.95. I trust this is an unorthodox review. The book is unorthodox; unorthodox, that is, for lawyers, especially the average lawyer, for Gideon's Trumpet involves the average case but a non-average client and a non-average lawyer-with a non-average layman-writer. This brings up two preliminary points of view. First, the average student or lawyer reads a case as if it consisted merely of words. He fails to understand the human element in the law.' Although realizing that times change the law,2 he fails to com- prehend that personalities and persons may likewise do so. 3 The total background of a case may be all-important, and this is why the political scientist does a better job in this respect than does the law professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Defiance and Resistance After Gideon V
    2150.BRIGHTSANNEH.2174_UPDATED.DOCX7/1/2013 12:27:56 PM Stephen B. Bright & Sia M. Sanneh Fifty Years of Defiance and Resistance After Gideon v. Wainwright abstract. In its 1963 ruling Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court declared the right to a lawyer “fundamental and essential” to fairness in the criminal courts and held that lawyers must be provided for people who could not afford them so that every person “stands equal before the law.” In later decisions, the Court ruled that a poor person facing any loss of liberty must have a lawyer “so that the accused may Know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully aware of the prospect of going to jail or prison, and so that he is treated fairly by the prosecution.” This Essay argues that fifty years later, this right has not been realized. The U.S. criminal system is not truly adversarial because prosecutors possess broad, unchecKed power and therefore determine results in criminal cases with little or no input from the defense. Governments have failed to adequately fund defense systems, many judges tolerate or welcome inadequate representation, and the Supreme Court has refused to require competent representation, instead adopting a standard of “effective counsel” that hides and perpetuates deficient representation. In this system, poverty, not justice, dictates outcomes. authors. Stephen B. Bright is Harvey Karp Visiting Lecturer at Law, Yale Law School, and President and Senior Counsel, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, Georgia. This Essay draws upon his first-hand observations of representation of indigents since 1976. Sia M.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORIES of and REFLECTIONS ABOUT GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT Bruce R
    File: JACOB.331.GALLEY(5).doc Created on: 9/16/2003 9:00 AM Last Printed: 12/18/2003 11:43 AM ARTICLES MEMORIES OF AND REFLECTIONS ABOUT GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT Bruce R. Jacob* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 183 II. RIGHT TO COUNSEL: BACKGROUND OF THE GIDEON DECISION ....................................................... 186 A. Early Developments............................................. 186 B. The “Scottsboro” Case .......................................... 188 * © 2003, Bruce R. Jacob. All rights reserved. Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. B.A., Florida State University, 1957; J.D. (replacing LL.B.), Stetson University College of Law, 1959; LL.M., Northwestern University, 1965; S.J.D., Harvard Law School, 1980; LL.M. (Taxation), University of Florida, 1995. Special Assistant and Assistant Attorney General, State of Florida, 1960–1962; Associate, Hol- land, Bevis & Smith (now Holland & Knight), Bartow, Florida, 1962–1964; Assistant and Associate Professor, Emory University School of Law, 1965–1969; Research Associate, Center for Criminal Justice, Harvard Law School, 1969–1970; Staff Attorney, Community Legal Assistance Office (now Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services), Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts, 1970–1971; Associate Professor, Professor, and Director of Clinical Programs, Ohio State University College of Law, 1971–1978; Dean and Professor, Mercer University School of Law, 1978–1981; Vice President of Stetson University, Dean and Professor, Stet- son University College of Law, 1981–1994. This Article is an outgrowth of remarks that I gave at American University School of Law in 1993 at the Conference on the Thirtieth Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 43 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 33–43 (1993), and remarks to the members of the St.
    [Show full text]
  • The 50Th Anniversary of Gideon V. Wainwright Joanna L
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 3-18-2013 A Lawyer for All: The 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright Joanna L. Grossman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Leon Friedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Joanna L. Grossman and Leon Friedman, A Lawyer for All: The 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright Verdict (2013) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/969 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11/21/2014 A Lawyer for All: | Joanna L. Grossman | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia March 18, 2013 Joanna L. Grossman and Leon Friedman A Lawyer for All: The 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright March 18, 2013, marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/case.html) , the landmark case establishing the right to counsel for indigent defendants in all felony cases. The notion that a criminal defendant ought to have the benefit of a lawyer—paid for by the government, if necessary—when facing the possible loss of liberty seems unremarkable today. The Miranda warnings, which are a staple of television and movie scripts, as well as a requirement of real-life custodial interrogations by the police, are a constant reminder of the right to appointed counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • Facebook Wall Photos Flair Boxes Clarence Earl Gideon Logout
    facebook Wall Photos Flair Boxes Clarence Earl Gideon Logout Clarence Earl Gideon is testing his right to legal counsel Wall Info Photos Boxes Write something… Share View photos of Gideon (5) Clarence Earl Gideon now I get a retrial with W. Fred Turner as my lawyer! Send Gideon a message August 5, 1963 Poke Louie L Wainwright I can’t believe you beat the state of Florida in the Supreme Court; we shouldn’t have to provide you with an attorney. Information March 18, 1963 Networks: Missouri, Florida Birthday: Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black I am wr iting the unan imous op in ion August 30, 1910 on your case (I think you’ll be happy with the decision)! Political: March 17, 1963 Democrat Hometown: Hannibal, Missouri Abe Fortas Don’t worry Gideon, I am a successful Washington D.C. lawyer and am guaranteed to you by the 14th Amendment; I will help you win your case. They might even want me to serve on the Supreme Court one day! January 15, 1963 Friends Clarence Earl Gideon can’t believe I was sentenced to 5 years in prison when my 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated. I’m going to write the Supreme Court. August 25, 1961 Warren Black Douglas Clarence Earl Gideon I don’t care what Henry Cook says, I did not steal any anything last night. June 3, 1961 Clark Harlan Brennan facebook Wall Photos Flair Boxes Clarence Earl Gideon Logout Clarence Earl Gideon is testing his right to legal counsel Wall Info Photos Boxes Personal Information Interests: Being a drifter and in trouble with the law Sex: Male Birthday: Au gu st 30, 1910 Hometown: Hannibal,
    [Show full text]
  • Gideon</Em> in Black: Race and Identity in Lawyering
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2005 Gideon in White/Gideon in Black: Race and Identity in Lawyering Anthony V. Alfieri University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Law and Race Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Anthony V. Alfieri, Gideon in White/Gideon in Black: Race and Identity in Lawyering, 114 Yale L.J. 1459 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Symposium Gideon in White/Gideon in Black: Race and Identity in Lawyering Anthony V. Alfierit CONTENTS INTROD UCTION ........................................................................................ 1460 I. GIDEONIN WHITE: RACE-NEUTRAL LAWYERING ............................ 1464 II. GIDEON IN COLOR: RACE-CODED LAWYERING ............................... 1467 III. GIDEON IN BLACK: RACE-CONSCIOUS LAWYERING ........................ 1474 A . Poverty Lawyers ........................................................................ 1475 B . Crim inal Defenders .................................................................... 1478 IV. GIDEONIN COMMUNITY: COLLABORATIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher Notes: Gideon V
    YEZ yez OH YAY! Teacher Notes: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Background of Gideon’s Criminal Case: 1. What happened on June 3, 1961 at the Bay Harbor Pool Hall in Panama City, Florida? The owner found a window broken, a few bottles of wine missing, the cigarette machine and jukebox smashed, and a small amount of change stolen from the machines. 2. Who was accused and what proof was offered for the arrest? Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested after a nearby resident told police he had see Gideon walking away from the pool hall about 5:30 AM. When police arrested Mr. Gideon, he had a pint of wine and a pocketful of change. 3. What was the charge? Mr. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering the pool hall with intent to commit petty larceny. At this time petty larceny was a felony offense in the state of Florida. Stop and Think: Based on the facts provided at this time, do you feel there was enough evidence to arrest Mr. Gideon? Explain your position. Background of the Criminal Case continued: (1:23 to 2:55) 4. What happened when Mr. Gideon told the court he did not have the money to pay for an attorney and asked that one be appointed for him? The judge told him that he would have to defend himself because under Florida law the state only had to provide an attorney for a person who couldn’t afford one if he/she was charged with a capital offense (one eligible for the death penalty).
    [Show full text]
  • Gideon's Trumpet
    IDH2930 (sect. 1G41): Gideon’s Trumpet Spring 2017 Dr. Biagio Santorelli - Dr. Sira Grosso § Time and Location M period 9, Hume Hall 119 § Contact Information Instructors: Dr. Biagio Santorelli, PhD ([email protected]) Dr. Sira Grosso, JD, LLM, PhD ([email protected]) Office hours: MWF period 6 (12:50-1:40pm) and by appointment 134 Dauer Hall § Course objectives and goals In the morning mail of January 8, 1962, the Supreme Court of the United States received a five-pages petition from Clarence Earl Gideon, a prisoner in the Florida State Prison. He had been accused in a court of law of felony theft for stealing a few bottles of beer and soda and $5 in change; he was too poor to pay for counsel, and he was denied a lawyer by his trial judge. Gideon was therefore forced to defend himself at his trial, where he was found guilty and given the sentence of five years in prison. In his cell, Gideon studied the US legal system and concluded that his constitutional right to counsel had been violated. He wrote to the Florida Supreme Court first, in vain; he then wrote to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear his appeal. In the subsequent trial, the lawyer assigned to represent Gideon argued that a common man with no training in law can not fairly confront a trained lawyer, and therefore that a fair trial is impossible without counsel. The Supreme Courte ruled unanimously in Gideon’s favor on March 16, 1963: because of this decision, about 2,000 convict in Florida alone were freed, and Gideon was granted a retrial, in which he was eventually acquitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Gideon V. Wainwright: a Lesson in the Obvious
    Pace Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Spring 1990 Article 9 April 1990 Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious Judith S. Kaye Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Judith S. Kaye, Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious, 10 Pace L. Rev. 419 (1990) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1990] GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT IX. Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious 31' Hon. Judith S. Kaye Gideon v. Wainwrights6 has always held special significance for me because it was handed down the very week of my admission to the Bar of the State of New York. At the time I considered it a particularly thoughtful gesture on the part of the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court to extend this unanimous welcome, and to assure me that I had chosen my livelihood well. Lawyers, declared Justice Black, are "necessities, not 316 luxuries. But the Gideon opinion, then as today, offered a brand new lawyer many serious lessons about the importance of the right to counsel, about the meaning of fairness and equal justice, and about the judicial process itself. It was remarkable in 1963, as it still is today, that a case that began with a habeas corpus peti- tion written in pencil by an inmate at the Florida State Prison could end by toppling a Supreme Court precedent of two de- cades' standing and establishing a constitutional landmark that continues to this day to inspire the most profound dialogue about the fundamental nature of this nation's pledge of justice for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Gideon Was a Prisoner: on Criminal Defense in a Time of Mass Incarceration Abbe Smith
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 70 | Issue 2 Article 17 Spring 3-1-2013 Gideon Was a Prisoner: On Criminal Defense in a Time of Mass Incarceration Abbe Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Abbe Smith, Gideon Was a Prisoner: On Criminal Defense in a Time of Mass Incarceration, 70 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1363 (2013), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol70/iss2/17 This Panel 4: The uturF e of the Right to Counsel is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gideon Was a Prisoner: On Criminal Defense in a Time of Mass Incarceration Abbe Smith∗ Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................... 1364 II. W. Fred Turner .............................................................. 1368 III. The Importance of Counsel for Both the Accused and Convicted ................................................................ 1382 IV. Conclusion ...................................................................... 1390 If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court, and if the [C]ourt had not taken the trouble to look for merit 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 William J. Leahy* in 1964, the Very First Year Following the Gideon1 Decision, Anthony Lewis Described the Monumental Nationa
    AMPLIFYING GIDEON ’S TRUMPET , REVITALIZING GIDEON ’S RULE : A PRESCRIPTION FOR ACTION William J. Leahy* I. ASSESSING THE FIRST HALF -CENTURY OF GIDEON : RECONCILING COURTROOM REALITY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE In 1964, the very first year following the Gideon 1 decision, Anthony Lewis described the monumental national challenge precisely and prophetically in chapter 13 of Gideon’s Trumpet : It will be an enormous social task to bring to life the dream of Gideon v. Wainwright —the dream of a vast, diverse country in which every man charged with crime will be capably defended, no matter what his economic circumstances, and in which the lawyer representing him will do so proudly, without resentment at an unfair burden, sure of the support needed to make an adequate defense. 2 As every comprehensive national report concerning the right to counsel has declared, the evidence is overwhelming that we have failed as a nation to realize the dream of Gideon ,3 at least in our state and local courts where a majority of criminal cases arise. We must face the fact that most poor people charged with crime in America are not “capably defended.” 4 Furthermore, most lawyers who provide their representation are not “sure of the support needed to make an adequate defense.” 5 We must acknowledge that today, 50 years later, the Supreme Court’s proud declaration that “[t]he 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” 6 bespeaks more irony than truth. Today, while the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gideon V. Wainwright: a Lesson in the Obvious Judith S
    Pace Law Review Volume 10 Article 9 Issue 2 Spring 1990 April 1990 Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious Judith S. Kaye Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Judith S. Kaye, Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious, 10 Pace L. Rev. 419 (1990) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1990] GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT IX. Gideon v. Wainwright: A Lesson in the Obvious 31' Hon. Judith S. Kaye Gideon v. Wainwrights6 has always held special significance for me because it was handed down the very week of my admission to the Bar of the State of New York. At the time I considered it a particularly thoughtful gesture on the part of the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court to extend this unanimous welcome, and to assure me that I had chosen my livelihood well. Lawyers, declared Justice Black, are "necessities, not 316 luxuries. But the Gideon opinion, then as today, offered a brand new lawyer many serious lessons about the importance of the right to counsel, about the meaning of fairness and equal justice, and about the judicial process itself. It was remarkable in 1963, as it still is today, that a case that began with a habeas corpus peti- tion written in pencil by an inmate at the Florida State Prison could end by toppling a Supreme Court precedent of two de- cades' standing and establishing a constitutional landmark that continues to this day to inspire the most profound dialogue about the fundamental nature of this nation's pledge of justice for all.
    [Show full text]