Gideon v. Wainwright: Landmark Case Securing Right to Legal Counsel

Differences Between the two Gideon Trials

First Trial

Clarence Earl Gideon was caught and tried before a jury in Gideon’s Trumpet for stealing a billiard club. Clarence’s trial is held without counsel, and he is sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon was not given an attorney since he had not been charged with a capital offense and did not meet the requirements for counsel. During his trial, Gideon struggled to prove his innocence due to a lack of legal expertise that prevented him from effectively questioning witnesses.

The testimony of a guy affected the jury’s verdict during his first trial. The man said that he witnessed Gideon leave the store with the stolen things, but Gideon did not know how to respond and appeared confused (Collins, 1980). People unfamiliar with the legal system often lack the capacity to advocate for themselves and effectively explain their points of view.

Second Trial

In jail, Clarence petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review his case, citing the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Gideon believed he should have had counsel since it was a requirement of due process, and he failed to defend himself effectively. The Supreme Court heard his petition and determined that denying impoverished defendants the right to have their interests represented in court by trained counsel violated the foundations of the United States Constitution.

Attorney Gideon’s major points before the court in the second trial were that the number of convicts who went to trial without an attorney was significant and that if a person was charged with a crime, they should have a legal right to an attorney. This seems reasonable, since innocent individuals should be free to speak for themselves and be heard. If no counsel is present, the court may not be impartial, and evidence may be tampered with. The court employed as a witness lied about having no priors, and Gideon’s counsel asked him where he had been before seeing Gideon in the pool area, according to fresh evidence produced at the second trial.

It turned out that their witness (who had testified against Gideon) was inebriated and that the posters on the windows made it nearly impossible to see him in the pool area. These facts again demonstrate the importance of having a lawyer, as only a lawyer can discover this information and contradict the evidence of dishonest witnesses. Watching the second trial makes people ecstatic because justice had been served, marking the beginning of a new era for the court.

Supreme Court Ruling

Thus, the court’s ruling in the film altered the balance of power between states and federalism by taking authority away from the states and allowing individuals jailed to have an attorney. This established the key precedent recognized in American law as Gideon v. Wainwright. In my opinion, this reform is unquestionably excellent since it creates a foundation for a fair trial and equitable access to defense for all members of society. A fair court provides an opportunity to build an equal society by emphasizing that everyone has equal rights and opportunities. It is also worth noting that this change in the judicial process signifies that every member of society must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their financial circumstances.

References

Collins, L. R. (1980). Gideon’s Trumpet [Film]. Hallmark Hall of Fame Productions & Worldvision.

Cortada, X. (2020). Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963). In Painting Constitutional Law. Brill Nijhoff.