Please post your information on the Gideon case here.
In 1961 in the state of Florida, Clarence Earl Gideon was sent to prison for five years after a trial in which he was not represented by counsel, having no money to hire an attorney himself. From that first trial on, Gideon insisted that the he had the right to have counsel appointed for him under the provisions of the United States Constitution. In 1963, in the case of
Gideon v Wainwright, the United States Supreme Court agreed and overruled the case of
Betts v Brady which had limited the conditions under which a defendant accused of a felony had to have counsel appointed.
As
Robert F. Kennedy later noted:
"If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell . . . to write a letter to the Supreme Court . . . 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 . . . and the whole course of American legal history has been changed."
Sarah Anne said...
ReplyDeleteToday in class when we were trying to find the Gideon’s Trumpet video, I actually was curious why the story of the Gideon v Wainwright case came known as “Gideon’s Trumpet.” After some research I learned that Gideon’s case had a book written about it by Anthony Lewis in 1964. He titled the book based on the biblical story about Gideon. It is supposedly a play on words because in the biblical story, “Gideon” orders a small army to attack a very large enemy camp. The army that Gideon led carried trumpets and torches covered by pots, so when it was time to attack the army appeared much bigger than they actually were. The story is from Judges 7:16-22. The connection with the case has to do with the fact that Gideon won his case without much fighting because he had a counsel that did it for him.
What other crimes did Clarence Earl Gideon commit before he was accused of robbing the Bay Harbor Pool Room?
ReplyDeleteAfter running away from home in the eighth grade, Gideon was convicted of burglary at age sixteen and served a year. Once Gideon turned eighteen, he was also convicted of robbery, burglary, and larceny. His sentence was ten years in jail, but he only served three of them. After age twenty one, he was convicted for stealing government property, stealing, larceny, escape, and theft on three separate occasions in three different states. All three of his children were taken from his care by child welfare authorities. He used gambling to supplement his earnings up until the time that he was convicted of breaking and entering at the Bay Harbor Pool Room.
"Clarence Earl Gideon - encyclopedia article - Citizendium." Citizendium. 04 May 2009.
One question that arose in my mind while watching the Gideon v. Wainwright documentary deals with the type of cases the Supreme Court hears. Like we discussed in class, they get thousands of cases submitted to them every year, and only hear a selection of those cases. Like we also discussed in class, they only deal with certain kinds of cases. So what are those specific categories of cases that the Supreme Court handles, and how many of them do they handle each year?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Supreme Court historical society, the Court’s docket gets over 10,000 cases a year, and about 100 of those are granted plenary review (meaning oral arguments are given by attorneys). Between 80 and 90 formal written opinions are delivered every year. The Court hears three types of cases. There first is “original jurisdiction” actions – which include state vs. state disputes, state vs. federal government disputes, and all cases involving foreign diplomatic officials. The second are appeals from decisions of state courts, where the litigant has no further court to appeal to in the state. The third, and vastly most numerous, is writ of certiorari cases, which are appeals of decisions rendered in federal courts. This is the category that Gideon v. Wainwright falls into.
What is the Betts v Brady case?
ReplyDeleteThe Betts v Brady case took place nearly 20 years before the Gideon v Wainwright case, but helped pave the way for Clarence Gideon to prove his case. In the Betts v Brady case, Betts was indicted for robbery, but was denied counsel by the trial judge. For his case his lack of counsel forced him to defend himself and later led to his conviction. Later he appealed to the Supreme Court that he had been unlawfully held and was not given right to counsel. First, Betts filed of writ of habeas corpus but was denied several times which led him to file a writ of certiorari. After Betts’s trial was presented to the Supreme Court, the officials decided that right to counsel was not necessary in all cases and in this case it was not necessary in order to receive a fair trial. Later in the Gideon v Wainwright case the Betts v Brady case was reviewed and overruled.
Question: Was Gideon found guilty due to that one eyewitness account?
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the CBS Report on the case of Clarence Gideon’s trial I was surprised how easily he was convicted on what seemed to be one eyewitness account. It turns out that Clarence Earl Gideon was indeed found guilty based alone on that single eyewitness account. Gideon had pleaded “not guilty” and was denied right to counsel, thus he had to defend himself in a court of law, something in which he was not trained. It was likely due to the fact that he (understandably) poorly defended himself that caused the jury to come forth with a “guilty” verdict.
My question is in regards to the lawyer that Gideon was appointed, who was he?
ReplyDeleteHis name is Abe Fortas, he was from Memphis and attended Yale Law School. He was very involved with democratic political campaigns, and even represented Lyndon B. Johnson at one point of his career. He defended many accused communist during the Red Scare. There was some controversary regarding alleged bribes towards the end of his career which caused him to resign, but he didn't admit anything. By and large he was a very distinguished lawyer, and Gideon's case was definitely one of his most important.
Who was sitting on the court at the time, and how did they vote?
ReplyDeleteThe case was brought before the Court during Earl Warren's tenure as Chief Justice. His compatriots at the time were Justices Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Goldberg. In general, the Warren Court was overwhelmingly liberal at this time, making for a 9-0 decision in this case. Even during the Warren Court with its strong majority, such 9-0 decisions were a rarity, making this case stand out on that point alone.
What does it mean to enter a case "in forma pauperis?"
ReplyDeleteHere's what I found:
"In forma pauperis (IFP or i.f.p.) is a legal term derived from the Latin phrase in the character or manner of a pauper. In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense. The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel. While court imposed costs such as filing fees are waived, the litigant is still responsible for others' costs incurred in bringing the action such as deposition and witness fees.
Approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis. Most of those petitioners are prisoners. Petitions that appear on the Supreme Court's in forma pauperis docket are substantially less likely to be granted review than those on the paid docket."
What is the origin of a writ of certiorari?
ReplyDeleteLike the medical field, the field of law has many references to Latin, and I was curious to see the connection. A writ of certiorari is filed when judicial review is sought. Today, it is used when a higher court orders a lower court or other governing body to send documentations regarding a particular case. The higher court will then review the case, but the "rule of 4" requires that 4 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court approve the writ. Under Roman law, the meaning was much the same but it was also used to indicate the need to inform "other parties of a court's ruling." When the monarchy ruled England, it was used to bring records to the King. As mentioned by Jon, the Supreme Court is more likely to hear a case on a paid docket than from an in forma pauperis docket.
I think I finally have this blog thing working, here goes nothing again....
ReplyDeleteThe Gideon decision was in direct contradiction to the precedent established only 20 years before in Betts v. Brady. While it would be very difficult to find someone who would argue that this wasn't for the best, what is the role of precedent when justices seem to set it aside when they consider it incorrect?
It would seem that precedent is not as important when dealing with constitutional issues or rights. Rather precedent seems to be more important for simple interpretation of laws.
"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.
reply here
DeleteFrom J.R.
ReplyDeleteGideon's whole predicament of being wrongfully convicted and eventually exonerated led me to wonder how many other people innocent prisoners have been released or even wrongly executed in the United States. Here are the alarming results that I found.
Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were arrested or indicted – until DNA testing (prior to trial) proved that they were wrongly accused.
Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
200 people have now been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing.
A 2005 study of all exonerations - DNA and non-DNA, death row and non-death row - has found that there have been more than 350 people wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated in the US since 1989. .
The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 31 states; in 2006, there were 18 exonerations.
14 DNA exonerees were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row.
The average length of time served by those exonerated by DNA testing is 12 years.
Information obtained from www.exonerate.org/facts
From Ashley H.
ReplyDeleteWhat are writ of habeas corpus and writ of certiorari?
Habeas corpus is a writ that allows a prisoner to question their imprisonment if they believe there is no legal issue that warrants they be in jail. It prevents people from being thrown in jail for long periods of time for no reason.
Certiorari is a petition that asks The Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It starts the appeals process if a defendant wants to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issues a Writ of Certiorari when they decide they will hear the case.
From Alex Doyle:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why did it take so long for America to realize this constitutional flaw in our legal system? Did the creators of the constitution really only want wealthy people and felons to be represented? Or did they WANT everyone to have a right to representation? Perhaps, its up to each individual what the constitution ACTUALLY MEANT, but I'm certainly glad the supreme court interpreted it to mean that everyone should receive council!
Alex Doyle
here's my reply
Deletehere's another
Deletebig reply
Delete