No one would ever really expect that the arrest of a man could change an entire nation’s legal system. This was a man who came from a rough background, apprehended several times for petty crimes. He had been unable to hold a job even with nothing more than an eighth-grade education. He spent his life drifting from city to city, either searching for a job, at times getting arrested, never really having a permanent place to call home.1 On the fateful day of this latest arrest, he was charged with breaking and entering into a pool house in Panama City, Florida.2 This final arrest for Clarence Earl Gideon would spark one of the most well known and famous cases in the United States, Gideon v. Wainwright.3
August 4, 1961, the day of his first trial, Gideon was left to represent himself in court because his request for an attorney had been denied.4 He did not have the money to pay for an attorney, leaving him with the only option: to defend himself. The odds were stacked against him, he had so little formal education, and almost no knowledge of the law, he poorly represented himself.5 As briefly mentioned, he was accused of breaking and entering into a pool house. Gideon had allegedly stolen $5 in change and a few bottles of beer and soda, and $50 from the jukebox.6 To make matters worse, the sole witness to the events, a man named, Henry Cook, gave a damaging testimony under oath that he saw Gideon in the pool room at the time of the crime. Cook explained that he witnessed Gideon walk out several minutes later with a pint of wine and a pocket full of change.7 Gideon was ultimately found guilty of the charges brought against him. Although, he had requested legal representation, the state of Florida denied him this right to an attorney, claiming that only defendants who had been charged with a capital offense, had that right. Gideon was sentenced to the maximum term: five years in jail.8 Shortly after being sentenced, Gideon began to study the law while in the prison and began learning about his rights from all the books in the library. Gideon realized that his 6th and 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The 6th Amendment “guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to an attorney, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are, and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.”9
This eventually led him to file a writ of habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court. By legal definition, a writ of habeas corpus petition is used “to bring a prisoner or detainee before the court to determine if the person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful.”10 Interestingly enough the writ of habeas corpus first originated back to the year 1215 through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John who stated: “No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”11 This clause had influenced the framing of the U.S. Constitution, more specifically the 14th Amendment, which states, “… No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”12 This amendment ties closely in with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Article III which guarantees non-discrimination, Article III which protects life, liberty, and security, and Articles VI and VII which promotes equal protection.13 This ultimately tied into Gideon’s petition, as recorded by the U.S. Department of Justice Archives, “Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights.”14 Unfortunately for Gideon, his Habeus Corpus petition was denied. Despite this new denial, Gideon refused to give up. He then proceeded to seek help from the highest court in the United States.
Frustrated and determined, Gideon did the unexpected. Gideon filed a handwritten petition for a writ of certiorari to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. By legal definition, a writ of certiorari is, “A request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.15 Again, Gideon argued in his petition that his legal right to representation guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution had been violated. From his prison cell, Gideon wrote, “It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or what church I belong too if any. The question is I did not get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested the court to appoint me attorney and the court refused. All countrys try to give there Citizens a fair trial and see to it that they have counsel.” 16 Gideon’s words and calls for help were recognized by the Supreme Court Justices. They agreed to hear his case. However, in doing so the Supreme Court would potentially be overturning the precedent ruling from another court case, Betts v. Brady (1942), which “denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state.17
January 15, 1963, Gideon came before the Supreme Court, this time with the help of a team of court-appointed lawyers led by Attorney Abe Fortas, who would later become an Associate Supreme Court Justice. During the trial, Fortas held the strong argument that “the aid of counsel is indispensable to a fair hearing.”18 Arguing for the Respondent at the time of the trial was Bruce Robert Jacob. Jacob represented the state of Florida, argued on the grounds of the Betts decision stated, “that every state should have the right to decide when and under what circumstances lawyers should be appointed.” Directly appealing to the state’s rights, he claimed, “that the cost of providing counsel to all defendants would be a “tremendous burden on the taxpayers.”19 Ultimately the decision came down to the nine Justices. On March 18, 1963, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon.20 The court’s decision was founded on the notion that “The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 21 In the court opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary 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 for him.”22 This statement strengthened and supported the court’s ruling to side with Gideon and overturn a 20-year old decision. As a result of the ruling, this decision now set a new precedent for the supreme law of the land. Meaning, that all states and all levels of criminal legal proceedings and courts are required, by federal law, to provide counsel to those who cannot afford to pay for their own representation. 23.
As a result of all the legal proceedings and the decision that he had a right to a court appointed attorney, Gideon was not acquitted, but was granted a retrial with proper representation. The retrial led to the acquittal of Gideon. 24 Gideon went off to live the rest of his life as a free man until his death from cancer on January 18, 1972, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.25 Thanks to Gideon’s perseverance today we all have a right to a court appointed attorney.
- Kimberly Harper, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” The State Historical Society of Missouri, (2004). ↵
- Kimberly Harper, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” The State Historical Society of Missouri, (2004). ↵
- Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Facts and Case Summary: Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963),” Federal Judiciary. ↵
- Josh Ashenmiller, “Gideon v. Wainwright” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2019). ↵
- Kimberly Harper, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” The State Historical Society of Missouri, (2004). ↵
- Jerold Israel, “Gideon v. Wainwright: The Art of Overruling,” University of Michigan Law School, (1963). ↵
- Jason Robin, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” University of Michigan Law School, 1989. ↵
- Jason Robin, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” University of Michigan Law School, 1989. ↵
- United States Constitution, “The Bill of Rights: sixth amendment.” ↵
- Legal Information Institute, “Habeas Corpus,” Cornell Law School, (1992). ↵
- King John of England, “Magna Carta,” (1215). ↵
- United States Constitution, “The Bill of Rights: Fourteenth Amendment.” ↵
- The United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” (1948). ↵
- U.S. Department of Justice Archives, “Gideon v. Wainwright,” (2018). ↵
- Legal Information Institute, “Writ of Certiorari,” Cornell Law School, (1992). ↵
- Clarence E. Gideon, “In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1961 No. 890 Misc. Clarence Earl Gideon, Petitioner vs. H.G. Cochran, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections, Page 1, (1962). ↵
- “Betts v. Brady.” Oyez. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/cases. (1942). ↵
- Jason Robin, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” University of Michigan Law School, (1989). ↵
- Jason Robin, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” University of Michigan Law School, (1989). ↵
- “Gideon v. Wainwright.” Oyez. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/cases. ↵
- Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Facts and Case Summary: Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963),” Federal Judiciary. ↵
- “Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court, “Gideon v. Wainwright: Key Excerpts From The Majority Opinion,” https://www.landmarkcases.org/gideon-v-wainwright. ↵
- Jerold Israel, “Gideon v. Wainwright: The Art of Overruling,” University of Michigan Law School, (1963). ↵
- Josh Ashenmiller, “Gideon v. Wainwright” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2019). ↵
- Kimberly Harper, “Clarence Earl Gideon,” The State Historical Society of Missouri, (2004). ↵
39 comments
Reba Reyes
The title itself to this article catches my eye. It is such a eye catching choice of words. In this life, things are very unfair. People can take advantage of you if you do not know your rights. It was a good thing that Gideon automatically knew what they had already invaded his personal rights. The article is very informative to people who are not aware of their rights.
Jakob Trevino
This article is really interesting. The court not allowing Gideon a right to an attorney and him having to defend himself with his educational status is degrading and a lowball move by the court. As a political science major and someone who has studied the supreme court and constitutional law, the Supreme Court striking down this move by lower courts shows the judicial review the higher courts hold, and honestly, violating the constitution should be an offense to the lower court.
Alyssa Vasquez
During this article, it made me realize how the court doesn’t give fair trials to everyone and is unequal. I believe it should be fair to everyone who has a trial. The fact the Gideon was denied a lawyer for his trial and had to represent himself is pretty unfair. Him having the education that he had was a very big help because without that who knows how much worse it would have been for him.
Keily Hart
The idea that the constitution could be so blatantly ignored in the court of law is so astonishingly sad. Gideons story is an inspiring one of perseverance and determination. To go from only an 8th grade education level, to having enough of a grasp of eloquently written english and the law proves that with the right circumstances anyone can succeed.
Yazmin Garcia
Such an inspiring article! It is so disheartening that Gideon was not given the initial fair trial that he deserved. It surprises me that he would be denied a lawyer and forced to represent himself when all are either allowed to hire one or the court usually will appoint one. If it were not for Gideon being one step ahead and educating himself while in prison on the laws of the constitution and his rights he might have had to have endured those 5 years in prison after all. Bless his soul.
Andres Ruiz
Legal battles in the modern age can often be extremely messy, with most people equating legal studies to rubbing fingernails against chalk. However, I believe a fine legal system is available to many people, even if it seems muddled up in bureaucracy. The right to a fair trial must be upheld in the American court, lest we forget our founding principles and fall to tyranny and chaos.
Nathaniel Bielawski
I can’t believe that it took the U.S. hundreds of years to finally apply the rights granted by the constitution to all people, especially in the case of Gideon. I find it surprising that a crime over $50 was taken all the way to the supreme court, which would grant all Americans essential rights. Thanks for this very well written and informative article that tells us where we got the right to an attorney.
Berenice Alvarado
It’s amazing how much Gideon changed history. I didn’t know that the right to have an attorney wasn’t around until early 1960’s, thanks to Gideon we all can now have an attorney even if you can’t afford one. Gideon changed the law and helped millions of people because of his case. This article was an informative article and I really like how organized it is.
Savannah Alcazar
The title, “You have the right to an attorney…” or Not, caught my attention as a political science major. The article is very informative. It is totally unfair Gideon had to defend himself in a court of law because his request for council had been denied. It is sad to say, but if this had not happened the system would not have changed.
Matthew Avila
this was an informative article and the way things were explained was great. I never knew why we were appointed a lawyer for court but now I understand and thank Gideon. He was arrested for small things and was unjustly sentenced to jail. I’m glad that he wanted to understand the laws and why he wasn’t given a lawyer while he was in jail. doing this not only changed his fate but the fate of all Americans.