Gideon's Trumpet Essay

He then knew for sure that they denied his right to have a lawyer to represent him in his case. Mr. Gideon was upset and decided to write a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court. The supreme court decided to overturn his case and give him a fair trial. He had spent 2 years in Federal prison and he went back to the same court and had the same judge. He didn’t want to have the lawyers that he had at first so he asked to extend his court date. The judge let him do that. This is the 2nd time he has been to trial for the same offense. Mr. Gideon thought that it was double jeopardy, but it wasn’t. This time he had a lawyer named, Turner. They then called Lester Wade to the stand as a witness and then he broke down, then he confessed about lying about saying he had never convicted a felony. Then the judges declared him not guilty of committing Grand Larceny and he was free. This case was important because it changed how cases in courts will be forever. Now, all people that go to court, even for misdemeanor cases. It changed the history for court cases

After the Supreme Court of Florida rejected his petition, he hand wrote a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that it hear his case. The Court allowed him to file it in forma pauperis, which meant that the Court would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition. Gideon’s case was considered. The writ that Gideon wrote was allowed and he was given an attorney and was retried. His attorney for retrial was Abe Fortas, who was later appointed to Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Gideon was found innocent of the charges and set free, but what Gideon's petition to the Supreme Court did established that every person convicted of a crime would be granted an attorney, even he could not afford one.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

Did the state court's failure to appoint a lawyer for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

The foundation of modern right to counsel through court-appointed attorneys at the expense of the government for an indigent defendant accused of a serious crime was made possible by the ruling in a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. If it was not for a man in his prison cell that wrote to the Supreme Court, the United States court systems would not be the same today. Clarence Gideon was arrested because he stole money from a pool hall’s vending machines. At trial he could not afford an attorney and was not appointed counsel. If it was not for Gideon who wrote to the Supreme Court petitioning his constitutional rights he would have never had the opportunity to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Clarence Gideon was an uneducated and poor citizen, he still was able to petition his constitutional rights to the United States Supreme court in order to achieve a truly fair trial. He ended discrimination in the courts against the poor who cannot afford their own counsel.

     However, Sutherland said that the Court was not deciding whether poor defendants had a right to free counsel in all situations, beyond the aggravated ones of this case: a capital charge, tried in haste and under public pressure.

During the trial, Kent counsel made the defense that he was not criminally responsible, instead, he stated that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Although he did everything to prove his client was not fully responsible, Kent was sentenced to serve five to fifteen for each count he was charged with, his counsel went before the Court Of Appeals, and asked for a revisal arguing that Petitioners detention and interrogation was unlawful, the police failed to notify his parents as well as follow the procedure of the juvenile act. The case was denied by the Court Of Appeals but overturned by the Supreme court. This resulted in the idea that there must be waiver hearings before a juvenile can be transferred to criminal court, as well as a juvenile can consult with his or her counsel before and during hearings. Another case that is very important for juvenile rights is In Re Gault (1967), A fifteen-year-old named Francis Gault along with his friend were taken into custody by the Arizona police, now was already on probation for a previous offense that involved being in the company who stole a wallet and purse. The reason he was taken into custody was a neighbor who was a victim of his rude, sexual remarks and the cops arrested him and put him in a detention center until

were entitled to freedom by virtue. (Lawson, 1987, 21-29) Shortly after this he was found in court getting tried

Wainwright. In this case, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony; he had broken into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, he requested that one be appointed. However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon had to represent himself in trial, was found guilty, and had to serve five years in prison. Hearing this, however, while he was in prison Gideon filed a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus in on the denial of counsel issue to the Supreme Court of Florida. Following that court’s rejection of the Petition, Gideon took his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated-which they had been. The Sixth Amendment states that the government is to provide lawyers for criminals in court-even the poor accused. Lawyers in criminal cases are necessities, not luxuries. Gideon won his case, and the Supreme Court held that the Framers placed high value on the right of the accused to have a fair trial with the ability to put up a proper defense, and that

That day, the justices honed in on the Fifth Amendment aspects of the case, which pleased John Flynn to no end. The last man to present a position in the case before the court was Thurgood Marshall, whose personal opinions were diametrically opposed to the position of his employer, the U.S. government.

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon stated, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel”.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).