In the summer of 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon faced a criminal
trial in a state court in Florida, on charges that he broke into a poolroom and
stole coins from a cigarette machine. He asserted his innocence and requested a
lawyer. That request was denied because, at the time, there was no right to a
court-appointed lawyer barring certain special circumstances. Gideon cross- examined
the state’s witnesses himself, without knowing the complexities of the criminal
procedure law. He was basically a lifelong drifter at the age of 51, with an
eighth-grade education. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in
prison.
Writing from his prison cell in Florida, he sent a handwritten
petition to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Constitution does
not allow poor people to be convicted and sent to prison without legal
representation. The time was finally right for this argument.
On
March 18, 1963, Justice Hugo Black, writing for a unanimous Court, stated: “….reason
and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal
justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot
be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us an
obvious truth….” and this right “may not be deemed fundamental and essential to
fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.”
It is time for Gideon to be overruled. The words of Justice Black clearly indicate that the court applied "reason and reflection" and not the original text of the constitution. In re-reading the constitution we can find NO MENTION of public defenders, much less regional counsel and court appointed lawyers. If states want criminal defendants to have free counsel that should be left to state legislatures to enact such laws if their citizens want them. And we are sure the public will rally around paying taxes for free lawyers for criminals. Gideon is nothing more than activist judges imposing their will on what they think is good for society and that is an anathema to the right.
So let's hear all of our DeSantis judges make a speech today against Gideon v. Wainwright and decry the public defender system. Show your true colors. In for a penny in for a pound. As much as Roe was poorly written, the same analysis can be applied to Gideon- so DeSantis judges, time to stand up and show your true Federalist colors. Don't make any PD or RC3 appointments today. Write an order, and the next seat on the Supreme Court may be yours, as will a prime spot on Fox TV.
19 comments:
The same logic can also be applied to Miranda and Brown v Board of Education, the latter of which reached the right result for all the wrong reasons. All stem from a belief that sociology and psychology are reliable "sciences" upon which to invent, construct, and enforce rights that were previously unknown and unknowable. What would a court do to a state that did not budget for a public defender's office? Hold legislators in contempt? And FYI Rump, back in '61, an 8th grade education in many parts of Florida was not at all uncommon.
Irony and hyperbole are dangerous when the audience does not have the capacity to laugh at themselves. They take it as a serious suggestion.
12:52 you are so right unfortunately.
12:50 you are correct so why stop with Roe? The original text of the constitution clearly embraced separate and unequal. Brown was a group of nine unelected judges imposing their morality on the south- it should be overturned as well.
And don't get me started on Griswold v Connecticut- finding a right to privacy within the "penumbra" of the Constitution? Don't make me laugh. It was just an unelected judge imposing his values and finding something in the constitution that clearly doesn't exist. If the framers wanted americans to have a right to privacy they had every opportunity to write it in the constitution and they did not do so.
Not even Jesus spent as much time on the cross as you do. Rose was bad law. Dobbs is better law, and abortion rights are pretty well established nationwide now. it is very offensive for you to take the position that all conservatives are evil, which you consistently do. By the way, at least Fox presents opposing views which NEVER occurs on CNN or MSNBC.
You should not drink and blog. Fox’s view of opposing views is as follows. “Good evening. We have on today a lawyer who sued Hillary Clinton for her destruction of government emails and computers and who is asking the government to prosecute her and seek life in prison. Presenting the opposing view is Reverend Jones who says that Jesus would forgive Clinton and we should too and that ten years in prison is more than enough. Since Jones is presenting the liberal democratic view of Clinton’s crimes end since we are fair and balanced we will give liberal Reverend Jones the opening words. “.
Gideon who?
It's bad enough most public defender offices are woefully underfunded. At least two sitting Supreme Court justices think indigent defendants have no right to have counsel provided and that Gideon v. Wainwright should be scrapped.
Which brings us to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his eager new sidekick, Neil Gorsuch. Last week, in a case that got little attention because it was handed down while we all were watching Michael Cohen testify against Donald Trump, Thomas and Gorsuch declared that the problem with the right to counsel in America isn’t that Gideon didn’t go far enough in requiring states to provide adequate public defense services. The problem as they see it is that Gideon went too far and now should be scaled back or outright overruled; that too many defendants are benefiting from too many court-appointed lawyers.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/gideon-who-conservative-war-your-right-counsel
The late Justice Scalia was fond of denouncing Gideon as "wrongly decided."
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/17/scalia-and-the-right-to-counsel
Amazing how people just believe what you write. Have you actually read the Gideon opinion? Justice Black wrote that Betts was wrongly decided and that Gideon should be afforded legal counsel because of the text of the Sixth Amendment. While you’ve correctly quoted a portion of his opinion, like the main stream media, you completely muddle the context. “The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial” and applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon was decided based on adherence to the text, unlike what you’ve written.
Remember the old joke: "God Is Dead" Nietzsche; "Nietzsche is Dead" God
Amazing 501 that you can read an opinion and read the blog and not recognize humor and sarcasm. In the immortal words of Sgt Hulka “lighten up Francis “.
Geeze it’s comments like these that really make me want to quit and go raise sunflowers for oil.
501 sounds like one of those very Judges you speak of Rumpy
Rumpole, all I can say is “you are the big toe”. Yet another clue to your true identity. I didn’t even know Sgt. Hulka had a law license.
Well, Rump, the sarcasm and satiric bent is appreciated but you have inadvertently stumbled upon the truth. Most of the cited cases in the comments were decided not on constitutional grounds but on the emotional/politcal gut feeling that racial minorities were getting the short end of the stick and it was time to reshuffle the deck and balance the levers of power. Another winner in this category is Baker v Botts, the revered one man one vote ruling. Hositility to one man one vote is part of our constitution's DNA (the electoral college, 10th Amendment, the entire US Senate for that matter) yet when state governments try to replicate for themselves what the constitution mandates for the feds, it is verboten!!! Go figure.
Didn’t Gideon look like Henry Fonda ?
Rump: You can take the boy out of the federalist but you can't take the federalist out of the boy.
12:50- a federal court would not order the state to spend more money. It would just start reversing convictions and kicking convicts free, undermining the north Florida prison economy.
Even if it is the popular thing on the Supreme Court today, it does no one any favors to pretend that we are first year law students in the bottom 50% and do not understand that there are real rights merely implied in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says so expressly.
Rumpole, please enlighten us and identify the provision of the Constitution that requires taxpayers to provide lawyers to criminals.
Sincerely,
FedSoccerMom
3:19- This is 11:59 again. I thought I cured the disease of strict textualists misunderstanding the Constitution above. Oh well. It is -implied-. Here is I believe some of the logic. Remember, the defendants are only accused maybe-criminals as far as we can know until after their impartial jury trial. The Sixth Amendment says everyone has the right to assistance of counsel, which is just BS if it means the same as "everyone has the right to assistance of travel by yacht and private jet." Various other provisions in the 5th and 6th like confronting witnesses are all designed to make the trial fair. No State ever goes to trial without a lawyer representing it, because it is a huge freaking advantage. Law, evidence and procedure is way more complicated than in 1783. The trial is almost never going to be fair if the defendant who cannot pay doesn't get a lawyer, so it is part of due process.
Interesting article about when the State Legislature wanted to close a bunch of prisons, but the Northern prison towns pushed back, that such a move would kill their economies.
“In most of my rural counties, the prison is the number one or number two employer. … If the jobs move out of the county, the families are going to move also,” she said.
See https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/04/07/florida-senate-scales-pack-prison-closure-plan/
Yes, very handsome
Post a Comment