Gideon’s Trumpet

Following the oral arguments, the justices convene to determine who will write the opinion and who will write the dissent. If a justice wishes to write an additional opinion or a dissent of their own, they may. Occasionally, a justice’s views may change amidst this process. As a result, the provisional votes can change and a majority can become a minority or vice versa. The entire process is shrouded in secrecy, so as to prevent the ruling from leaking to the public. Information rarely leaks from the Court. The writing process can take weeks or months; it is a frustrating time for the lawyers involved. Jacob, waiting for the ruling, reflects on the mistakes he made and wonders what he could have done differently. He has “no doubt, now, that the Court [will] overrule Betts v. Brady” (105).

The ruling is announced on 18 March alongside many others. Gideon v. Wainwright (Wainwright being Louis L. Wainwright, the newly-appointed director of the Florida Division of Corrections) is announced in Gideon’s favor, overturning Betts v. Brady. It is a unanimous decision; there is no dissenting opinion. Justice Black reads his opinion publicly, eviscerating Betts v. Brady and overturning the previous ruling. He notes that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries” (107). The full scope of the decision—what stage the lawyer is to be assigned, whether it affects those already in prison, and which cases it covers—is not revealed. Instead, it is left to be answered by the Supreme Court when such cases reach them. Once Justice Black is finished, the other justices provide their opinions. Once they are finished, Gideon’s case is closed. He has won.

When Jacob hears about the decision, he tells a friend that it is only the beginning. Without a formal system for assigning public counsel, many lawyers are forced to work out of pocket and the quality of the legal assistance suffers. There are numerous examples of defendants receiving inadequate assistance and lawyers being bankrupted after being forced to work for free during long trials. The issue is well-known, and ten days before the Gideon decision legislature is already moving through Congress to address the issue. The passage of the bill is not smooth and attempts to pass it are hindered by battles over civil rights.

There are a number of solutions proposed: judges can continue to assign lawyers to cases, but they would be modestly compensated for their time and expense; a full- or part-time public defender and staff could be hired; counsel could be supplied by a local legal-aid society who could then be paid by federal funds; or a combination of any or all of the above. The proposals are fiercely debated, with many unsure whether it is best to place such responsibility in public or private hands, though “experienced observers believe that some governmental participation is essential” (113), particularly in big cities. Everyone, however, agrees that the present system is inadequate. Regardless, converting the ideals behind the Gideon judgement into reality face great difficulty, and there is a recognition for the need of a hasty resolve; the “reaction of the states to Gideon v. Wainwright [is] swift and constructive” (114).

Within two months of the decision, Florida creates a public defender network across the state. More states follow suit. By October 1963, the Court begins to assess one of the unanswered questions of the Gideon case, whether those already convicted without legal counsel can retrospectively demand a retrial. The Court sends many cases that now come before it regarding retrials back to Florida to be reconsidered; they seem to be urging the Floridian authorities to rule on retroactive application independently. Florida acts, applying the Gideon ruling retrospectively with spectacular results. By 1964, 976 prisoners have been released outright while a further 500 are back in court. Hundreds more petitions await consideration. While the burdens placed on the legal system by the Gideon ruling are heavy, there is “no sign that the American legal community regards them as unjustified” (117).

The result of the case is “in part testament to a single human being” (118), Clarence Gideon. Against the odds, he insisted that he had the right to an attorney and took his case to the highest court in the nation. His triumph is evidence of the potential of the poorest and most marginalized in society. He was not, however, working alone. Indeed, his triumph is the result of greater forces moving through time. The law evolves, case-by-case, and is not without criticism or failure.

Indeed, the massive influence of the Supreme Court calls into question the appropriateness of nine unelected justices dictating the most fundamental legal positions of the country. It should be noted that “democracy does not exist as a pure commodity anywhere in the country’s governmental processes” (119); each member of Congress does not represent an equal number of people. Thus, the Court provides a forum for people who do not have a voice in the legislative chamber. Gideon is one such example. Another is the progress of the civil rights movement. In both examples, victories have been won in the Supreme Court that might not have been actioned by politicians elected by the people. The Court can serve as a safety valve in these situations, “relieving intolerable social pressures that build up when the legislatures are unresponsive to urgent needs” (120).

The Court also retains a more intimate and less institutionalized character. It works independently and each justice bears responsibility for their decisions, unlike the often faceless bureaucratic machinations of government. Unlike the legislature, the courts cannot reach decisions because the voters demand it. Rather, they must explain and signpost each decision with legal precedent. Similarly, lifetime appointments mean that justices do not have to worry about satisfying voters at the next election; they are free to reach decisions as they see fit. Decisions—such as those on school segregation—can be ahead of their time and can precipitate wider social change. The Court does not always succeed; Betts v. Brady is evidence of its ability to reexamine a past error and correct course. Following the ruling, Justice Black visits the now-retired Justice Frankfurter. When discussing the case, Black asks Frankfurter whether he would have voted to overturn Betts v. Brady: “Of course I would” (125), Frankfurter says.

Though Clarence Gideon won his case before the Supreme Court, he is not instantly freed. Rather, he is now entitled to a retrial with a lawyer present. While this new trial sets no legal precedents, it is interesting in that it answers the question of whether Gideon would have benefited from having legal counsel present. Fortas arranges an attorney named Tobias Simon to represent Gideon. As the trial draws near, Gideon becomes convinced that he will not receive a fair trial. He wants to be freed under the double jeopardy ruling and refuses to allow Simon to represent him. Worried that Gideon will represent himself again, the judge appoints a local lawyer as Gideon’s counsel. Gideon is hostile to the new man also. The judge delays the trial for a month.

On the day of the trial—his motions to dismiss denied—Gideon arrives at the courthouse. The jury is selected and sworn in and witnesses are called. Gideon’s new lawyer pokes holes in their testimony. Both sides make their closing statements and the jury is sent to deliberate. After just over an hour, they return with a verdict of not guilty. Gideon, tears in his eyes, is now a free man. He immediately plans to gather together his family once again. That night, he plans to return to the poolhall he had been accused of robbing, this time in celebration.