The story of Clarence Gideon, an ordinary drifter accused of breaking and entering, deserves recognition as the man was deprived of legal counsel representation and had to represent himself. At the moment of his trial, Americans could use free legal counsel only in death penalty cases. Gideon tried to change the rule of law that discriminated against individuals in their need for fair defense and trial. His representation was appropriate but not enough, which resulted in five-year imprisonment. The nature of the law effectively supported his decision to write an appeal and provoke a new trial that became his legacy. Gideon’s petition to the Supreme Court improved the law and ensured that all defenders, regardless of their incomes and crimes, could have the right to a free attorney.
The U.S. Supreme Court had the right to focus on Gideon’s case, following the Sixth Amendment and guaranteeing a person’s fundamental right to a fair trial. Before this case, there were several situations when people could not allow themselves attorneys and lost the trial, including Betts v. Brady case in 1942. It was necessary to improve the system, and some changes emerged with time to ensure fair trials for people of a young age, with mental health disorders, or challenged by racial discrimination (Prentzas, 2007). Gideon’s case provoked new discussions to demonstrate the weaknesses of the court system. The outcome included the freedom of many unfairly convicted or poorly defended citizens of Florida.
The reason for Gideon’s success was related to the worth of in forma pauperis and writ of certiorari practices. A writ of certiorari is granted “if four of the nine justices agree that a case presents an important legal issue” (Prentzas, 2007, p. 11). The petition should be reviewed by a lower court representative, making the reexamination of a potentially unjust case not just “a matter of right, but of judicial discretion” (Prentzas, 2007, p. 11). Under Supreme Court Rule 39, in forma pauperis, petitions allow filing an appeal without paying the usual fees (Prentzas, 2007). After losing the first case, Gideon introduced a handwritten petition and asked permission to initiate another trial in forma pauperis as a pauper. The Court agreed to cooperate and appointed a free legal attorney, Abe Fortas.
The absence of an attorney during the first trial could explain the inability of Gideon to win that case. The man requested the Court to appoint legal counsel for representation but got a denial. He did his best to prepare for a trial: a clear opening statement, cooperation with the prosecution, and several arguments to prove his innocence. Unfortunately, his words were not enough, and he got five years. The presence of an attorney during the first case could have made some difference. A specially educated person would have been more aware of legal terms and courtroom behaviors to find appropriate witnesses or challenge the prosecution’s statements.
Gideon’s poverty and the decision to run away from his parents resulted in no education and degrees to be used for employment. In a letter to Fortas, Gideon explained that his first time of institutionalization was at the age of 14 (Prentzas, 2007). Then, he was sentenced to 10 years for robbery at 18, only to be released on parole during the Great Depression (Prentzas, 2007). Unemployed, Gideon resorted to the life of petty crime, being “in and out of jail” until 1961, when he was arrested for breaking (Prentzas, 2007, p. 16). Between his trials, Gideon got married several times and had several children.
Gideon’s story shows that even the most predictable cases could lead to rather unpredictable results. The Supreme Court’s attitude towards the man was negative, resulting in a strict and unfair conviction. However, Gideon’s intention to protect his rights for legal representation brought significant shifts to the court system. It was not enough to have a fair court or some evidence but to get guarantees that free protection is possible for all citizens, regardless of their age, income levels, gender, or race.
Reference
Prentzas, G. S. (2007). Gideon V. Wainwright: The right to free legal counsel (Great supreme court decisions). Infobase Publishing.