Gideon’s Trumpet

“Its public image seems sometimes to be less that of a court than of an extraordinarily powerful demigod sitting on a remote throne and letting loose constitutional thunderbolts whenever it sees a wrong crying for correction.”

After establishing Gideon’s credentials as a sympathetic figure, the text begins to establish the court as a monumental force that he has to overcome. The depiction of the court’s public perception above speaks to this, depicting the court as Zeus atop Mount Olympus. Such a powerful figure is not likely to have its mind changed by a mere mortal (particularly one who is not a lawyer and who fundamentally misunderstands the legality of his claim). The narrative is establishing the stakes at play in the battle; Gideon’s task involves convincing the god-like court to change its mind.

“It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or what church I belong to if any.”

Though the book is about Clarence Gideon (and is even titled after him), the nature of his case is universal. The above quote reflects this and demonstrates that Gideon is aware of this from the very beginning. He is not simply fighting for his freedom, but positions himself as a key member of a universal struggle against an unfair and unjust system. By taking on this role—almost like a martyr—Gideon can help achieve victory in the court of public opinion as well as the Supreme Court.

“Fortas is an old friend and counselor of Lyndon Johnson and was one of the first men called in to help when Johnson assumed the Presidency.”

Given the text’s date of publication, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was likely to provoke a much rawer emotion amongst the audience. To the modern reader, assisting Lyndon Johnson might be little more than historical fact. To the contemporary audience, Fortas’s role in helping to steer the government through one of the most turbulent and chaotic moments of the 20th Century serves to burnish his credentials as a trustworthy figure of note. Evidently, Fortas is a calm and composed man in addition to being an excellent lawyer. This is exactly what Gideon requires.

“Actually, under Florida law intoxication would have been a defense to this crime; Gideon evidently did not know that, but a lawyer would have.”

The monumental task faced by Gideon in representing himself in court is demonstrated by this humorous aside. In trying to prove that he was not drunk at the time of the crime, Gideon has accidently destroyed a potential legal defense. A trained lawyer would have known this, but Gideon does not. As such, Gideon actively harms his defense and the need for legal counsel is demonstrated even further.

“I suppose, I am what is called individualist a person who will not conform.”

For the first time, the text employs Gideon’s own voice to trawl through his biography. Though the prose is littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, there are moments of searing insight such as this. Gideon sees himself as separate from society, markedly different from the family in which he was raised. It is ironic that an individualist and a person separate from society should have such a profound effect on the federal law, thus dictating the manner in which every person in the country is treated.

“These questions have been the subject of a fierce and unending debate among commentators and the justices themselves.”

In this chapter, the text positions Gideon’s case in the context of an ideological war. Gideon is not just an individual trying to raise an issue over the legal system. Rather, he becomes the latest pawn in the ongoing battle between justices such as Black and Frankfurter. By placing Gideon in such a context, the text escalates the stakes and the importance of the case. It is no longer only about one man’s right to legal counsel. Now, it has become another battle in the war between federalists and states’ rights enthusiasts, between those who adhere to and those who willingly overturn precedent.

“The growth of a national economy and the emergence of the United States as a world power have inevitably made us more a nation, and have necessarily increased federal authority.”

The ideological furor between the opposing sides in the battle is not just a matter of opinion. Rather, as hinted at by the above quote, it is the product of the changing ideals of a nation. The manner in which America and Americans conceive of themselves (as a singular nation, rather than a collection of individual states) alters the way they view their legal system and thus which cases are brought before the Supreme Court. These extraneous events (the US’s rising importance on the world stage, the growth in communications and travel) lead to a more federalized mindset. This mindset is then gradually expressed in changes to the law. Rather than just documenting legal history, the text attempts to provide historical context and insight as to why the legal history developed as it did.

“I think there’s only one state—the United States.”

In the previous chapter, the text provided a wealth of background—legal, historical, cultural—as to why attitudes towards Gideon’s case have changed and why he might win. In nine words, Gideon pieces together the same sentiment in a concise, digestible quotation. This select quote, coming so quickly after the previous chapter, is a deliberate ploy. It speaks to Gideon’s innate intelligence, that he is able to sense the changing cultural attitudes and give them voice, joining a fight that is actually much larger than a single individual.

“His lower lip trembles, and he speaks in a slow, sad, defeated voice.”

Amid the facts, history, and context of the legal case, this chapter begins to provide a literary insight into Gideon himself. While Gideon has described his life in his own voice (through his letter), this description of him provides a subjective narrative lens through which to view the protagonist. The visitor to the prison surveys Gideon and sees him as a sad, defeated man. The use of adjectives in the description is negative to the point of being morose; the idea of Gideon as conjured by these literary passages emphasizes the importance of winning the case. Gideon is a tired old man, beaten down by life. Victory in the Supreme Court would, at the very least, provide him with an achievement.

“The sense of loneliness, the confusion of guilt and outrage, the feeling that one is caught up in machinery he does not understand—all of these emotions well up in a person who finds himself arrested for even a moderately serious traffic offense.”

The difficult circumstances in which Gideon found himself are not unique. As evidenced throughout this chapter, it is an issue that affects thousands. The emotional weight of the problem is clear, while the thought that so much as a minor traffic incident could result in a poorly prosecuted trial or a misunderstanding is equally hellish. In describing the emotional impossibility of the situation, the text makes it clear that this common problem is one that needs to be solved but that has taken many decades to become a mainstream concern.

“It is a burden placed on the accused solely by reason of his poverty.”

The importance of this quote derives from the fact that it is sourced from a justice’s dissenting opinion in a case not dissimilar to Gideon’s own. In this quote, the justice is concerned that the lack of legal counsel punishes the poor simply for being poor. This, they believe, is a moral outrage. That it appears in a dissenting opinion demonstrates the extent to which opinion is changing in the years leading up to Gideon’s case, as well as the arguments that will be used when Gideon’s time finally arrives. The quote is foreshadowing the trial as well as providing context.

“This was that Betts v. Brady might be injurious to the very principles of federalism on which it supposedly rested.”

In constructing their legal argument, Fortas and his team tried to view the case from the perspective of their likely detractors. They then use rhetorical devices to try and nullify these detractions. In the above quote, for instance, they know that Frankfurter is a federalist and will likely rule against them on this basis. They attempt to circumvent his most vehement argue, illustrating that Gideon’s position is actually more federalist than the opposition. There is an inherent irony in turning the opposition’s most potent arguments against them and it demonstrates the skill and the preparedness of Fortas and his legal team.

“I do now know how you have enticed the general public to take such an interest in this cause. But I must say it makes me feel very good.”

When reading through Fortas’s brief, Gideon sees the innate injustice that he has sensed and felt for years being translated into legalistic language. He might not understand the complexities of the laws or the subtlety of Fortas’s arguments, but there is a clear bond between the two men. They are arguing the same point in different ways: Fortas has his objective, purposeful legal training and Gideon has his pure, uninformed emotional response. In the above quote, both sides come together and feel pleased with the work done on the case.

“That in the world of today a man may be condemned to penal servitude for lack of means to supply counsel for his defense is unthinkable.”

The above quote is important not because of the sentiment—which is expressed elsewhere and by other figures in the text—but because of its origin. The quote stems from an independent review of the issue at the core of Gideon’s case. It contains the same sentiment as the arguments put forth by Fortas but has been voiced by a collection of attorneys general that are not connected to Fortas. Thus, it speaks to the upsurge in public opinion, reflecting the power of the sentiment itself as it comes from all across the United States.

“By the time he began to write it, in the late fall, Jacob had lost the few shreds of hope he had had of winning the case.”

Rather than a one-dimensional opponent, Jacob a man who is acting in—what he believes to be—the country’s best interest. His aim is not to punish Gideon or those like him; rather, he believes in the case that he is putting forward as being the best, most just, and most efficient way of trying defendants. He is an honorable man, as evidenced by the fact that—even though he knows he will lose—he still devotes every evening and weekend he has to the case. He works hard because he believes in the cause and, in doing so, makes himself a worthy opponent.

“At the same time the most aloof and the most approachable of all the institutions of government.”

The lead up to the oral arguments establishes the physical space in which they will take place. The marble halls and the bronze doors hint at the aloofness mentioned in the above quote, while the need for Jacob to acquire special accreditation in order to enter is suggestive of the exclusivity surrounding the building. There is a need for the institution (if not the building) to become approachable. The notion of law as it pertains to each individual person means that people can engage with the idea of the court far more than the executive branch, for instance. It becomes approachable by its nature.

“But then, when an argument begins, all the trappings and ceremony seem to fade, and the scene takes on an extraordinary intimacy.”

For all of the discussion between the aloof and approachable aspects of the Court, it is the juxtaposition once inside which provides the real shock to Jacob. For all of the ceremony and the grandiosity, the justices and the lawyers speak candidly and familiarly once inside. This contrast is a relief for a man who was so anxious beforehand. Additionally, for the audience, it provides an insight into a chamber into which most people will never step but will nevertheless affect their lives. The extraordinary intimacy becomes an essential part of the aesthetic of the Court, almost verifying and justifying its ability to rule on many private and personal matters.

“For the parties to a case, and their lawyers, the period between argument and decision is a time of frustrating puzzlement, of might-have-beens, of daydreams and nightmares.”

While the readers of the book peak behind the curtain of secrecy that shrouds the Court, those involved in the case have no such privilege. After the oral arguments, they must simply wait for the judgement. There is nothing they can do that will affect the case and—for Jacob, at least—it is a period filled with anxiety, pessimism, and regret. Rather than thinking about his present or future, he mulls over the mistakes he made and what he might have done differently. It is a period of legal purgatory, in which he must exist in limbo and await his judgement.

“When Betts v. Brady was decided, I never thought I’d live to see it overruled.”

Even for a justice of the Supreme Court, the weight of the decision in the Gideon case is surprising. By attributing these words to Justice Black—who wrote the majority opinion—the text demonstrates just how important and revelatory the decision is, in the context of the history of the Supreme Court. By overturning Betts v. Brady, the Court has achieved something that even one of its members thought was impossible.

“It is only the beginning.”

Though Jacob lost the case that was put before the Supreme Court, he is still shown to be an insightful lawyer. He is well aware that the predictions that he made during the case—that the ruling would have huge ramifications—will quickly come to pass. In the above quote, he acts as something of a Greek chorus, providing a warning of the difficulties that lay ahead. Jacob, though the loser of the case, will soon find that many of his predictions are vindicated, at least in the short term.

“Thus the process of converting the ideal of Gideon v. Wainwright into reality necessarily involved the participation of legislators, lawyers, judges and citizens across the country.”

The above quote demonstrates the clear demarcation between the result of the Gideon case as theoretical law and actual practice. The ruling constitutes an abstract ideal, something that the most senior justices in the land would like to happen. Developing this into actual practice takes a great deal of hard work and legislature. The difference between the law as an abstract and a reality forms the narrative aftermath of the Gideon case.

“The Court can in fact serve as a safety valve, relieving intolerable social pressures that build up when legislatures are unresponsive to urgent needs.”

The final chapter of the book discusses the wider social role of the Court. The ability of the Court to do what the politicians cannot means that it plays a vital role. The metaphor used here—the safety valve—suggests a powerful unrest and violence that is alleviated in the society through the Court’s decisions. Considering the social issues being ruled upon at the time of writing, this metaphor proves to be apt.

“What is given to the justices is not the power to command but to persuade.”

The role of the justices within the Court is also different to that of politicians operating within the legislative branch. While legislature is passed by votes, the justices must provide reasoned answers and explanations for their decisions. This vital difference colors the actions of the Court and, as evidenced in the above quote, demonstrates the importance of rhetoric and reasoning in each decision.