Gideon v. Wainright Case Law

This Legal Studies Senior Seminar capstone course is your final course before you graduate. Here, you must write a 10 page research paper (that is, your chapter of the Class Book). Now there are typically two types of research papers (chapters): those that are really good, and those that lack any real substance. To demonstrate that you are ready to graduate, you need to write a really good research paper.

In order to write a really good chapter, you must first carefully choose a legal topic about which to write. Remember that your chapter needs to address at least one course objective and one access to justice issue addressed throughout this course. In addition, please remember that your chapter also has to dovetail in with the other chapters being created to form the overall Class Book project so that each of the course objectives and each of the access to justice concerns are covered somewhere within the final version of the Class Book.

Thus, you must choose your legal topic well. The topic should be legally important and also very narrow in scope. If you do not narrow your proposed topic’s range, then you will not be able to demonstrate, within this single course, that you can deeply research, thoroughly analyze, and succinctly write about a legal matter. This sort of demonstration is critical for graduation purposes. Not only are these skills important for you to show that you are ready for graduation, but legal employers are also very interested in hiring employees who can prove that they have such skills. [If you write this research paper (chapter) properly, then you should be able to use it as an example of your writing skills for employment purposes.]

Here is some very specific guidance for your chapter in this class (This is the only guidance you will follow):

1. Your chapter will be 10 full pages, including footnotes. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Why 10 pages, you ask? It is actually harder to write a 10 page paper than it is to write a 15 or 20 page paper. You must be clear and avoid the filler that is often contained in longer papers. What is filler? Filler is extra “stuff” that just fills pages but adds little or no value to your paper.

2. Introduction (5%): Your introduction will not be longer than two pages.

3. Thesis Statement: (5%): Immediately after your introduction, you must present a clear thesis statement. In simplistic terms, a thesis statement is the main point of your paper that tells the reader what you intend to argue later in your paper. Word your thesis statement, as follows: “My thesis statement is . . . .” The thesis statement should not be longer than two sentences, and normally one is sufficient.

4. Road Map (5%): Immediately after your thesis statement, you must provide a clear road map to let the reader know where you are going with your paper. Word your road map similar to this: “My paper will first briefly explore . . . , followed by . . . . Finally I will defend my thesis statement by . . . .” Your road map should be only a few sentences, but it must be clear.

5. Background (5%): Next, provide a brief but clear background of your topic. This may only be one page or less.

6. Argument/Defending Your Thesis Statement (50%): Now you are at the meat of the paper (chapter), defending your thesis statement. This must be at least five full pages, and you must use your research to defend your thesis statement. This is the hardest part of your paper, and this is where you need to focus your time and energy. Why? This is where students historically lose a lot of points. Students either present poor arguments or they present no arguments at all. You will present clear arguments, supported by your research, to defend your thesis statement.

Last four points in this area —

(1) Conclusory statements must be supported with your research;

(2) Do not use provoking language which amounts to merely an opinion, such as: “Those who support capital punishment are idiots.” (This actually came from a student);

(3) Remember that the Class Book chapter that you are writing is a legal research paper. Focus your attention on the law, not on the political or social sciences nor on your personal opinion, and make sure that you provide objective (balanced) support; and

(4) You need to fill in glaring gaps. For example, one past student’s entire research paper argued that the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution was misinterpreted by the Supreme Court and that religion should be in schools, government, etc. The glaring gap was, given the student’s arguments, what did the separation clause mean? This was not addressed.

7. Conclusion (5%): Conclude your research paper (chapter) in one page or less.

Finally, a few other points:

1. Grade: The grading rubric for each section of your paper is given above. As you can see, 50% of your paper is the argument section, which is why I say it is your main focus.

2. References/Proper Use of the Bluebook (10%): You must use a minimum of 15 scholarly references that will be footnoted (per the Bluebook) on the page where you use the reference. You may use a reference more than once, but it still only counts as 1 of the 15. Scholarly references are not Wikipedia, blogs, or unsubstantiated websites. Please use primary resources (e.g., the Constitution, statutes, case law) and high quality secondary resources (e.g., legislative history, peer-reviewed academic reference material like law review articles).

3. Proper Grammar, Spelling and Sentence Structure (15%): Write like the well-educated scholar that you are.

4. Formatting: Double space your paper and use a 12 point Times New Roman font.

5. Topic: Subject to the above instructions, choose a topic of interest to you. If you don’t feel passion for the subject matter, choose another topic.

Summarized Specific Guidance for Your Research Papers (please see Week 1 Assignment for full instructions):

1. Your paper will be 10 full pages, including footnotes.

2. Introduction (5%): Your introduction will not be longer than two pages.

3. Thesis Statement: (5%): Immediately after your introduction, you must present a clear thesis statement.

4. Road Map (5%): Immediately after your thesis statement, you must provide a clear road map to let the reader know where you are going with your paper.

5. Background (5%): Next, provide a brief but clear background of your topic. This may only be one page or less.

6. Argument/Defending Your Thesis Statement (50%): Now you are at the meat of the paper (chapter), defending your thesis statement. This must be at least five full pages, and you must use your research to defend your thesis statement.

7. Conclusion (5%): Conclude your research paper (chapter) in one page or less.

 

ANSWER

 

Access to justice – Gideon v. Wainwright

On the morning of June 3, 1961, a burglar broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Florida, broke some machines, and stole money from the cash register[1]. Later on that day, a witness told the police he spotted Clarence Earl Gideon in the pool hall around 5.30 a.m., which led to his arrest, trial, and jailed for the alleged crime. During the trial, Gideon, who was too poor to afford a lawyer, asked the court for a public defender but was informed that it was only applicable for defendants charged with capital offenses. He, therefore, had to defend himself, but the jury ruled against him, and the judge jailed him for five years.

While in jail, Gideon studied the law. He prepared a petition which he presented to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it denied him a public defender lawyer. The court denied his plea. He, therefore, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition against H.G. Cochran, the Florida Department of Corrections Secretary, later replaced by Louie Wainwright when he retired. Luckily, the Supreme Coat considered his application and assigned Abe Fortas, an influential Washington D.C. lawyer, as his counsel for the case.  Bruce Jacob represented Florida state and Wainwright. Fortas argued that the guidelines for the assignment of court-appointed counsel at the state level were impractical given they granted the magistrate power to determine whether the circumstance called for such a move. Secondly, he pointed out that even lawyers hire other lawyers when they have criminal cases, making it all the more necessary for laypeople with no legal education.

On March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, citing its earlier ruling in Powell v Alabama (1932)[2] and superseding Betts v Brady (1942)[3] upheld the standard view that court-appointed counsel was only necessary for exceptional circumstances. Consequently, more Supreme Court decisions strengthening the Sixth Amendment and defendant rights emerged, such as the Massiah v. United States (1964)[4] and Miranda v. Arizona (1966)[5], which applied the necessity of public counsel even during police interrogations. The landmark Gideon v Wainwright ensured Gideon got a new trial with a public defender as his lawyer, which led to his acquittal and released the same year. In his home state of Florida, the courts immediately released 2000 individuals after the ruling because the courts had violated their rights to counsel.

In the ensuing years, the public defender system has grown exponentially, with states all over the U.S. creating frameworks that ensure indigent defendants have a fair trial. On the other hand, it has led to the enormous demand for public defenders’ services who often end up with unmanageable workloads. The stress compels them to advise clients to accept guilty pleas, plea bargains, and lighter sentences rather than face trial and risk harsher penalties. The Gideon v Wainwright Supreme Court ruling vastly expanded access to justice, though it left many outstanding issues that continue to dog the judicial system more than 50 years later.

My thesis statement is that the Gideon v Wainwright Supreme Court ruling did not go far enough in enshrining the right to counsel. This view is because it left loopholes that states and policymakers have used to weaken its impact, hampering access to justice.

My paper will first briefly explore the practical implications of the ruling at the state level, followed by the federal level. Finally, I will defend my thesis statement by providing cases of active and organized opposition to the law and proposing how the Supreme Court can strengthen it.

Practical implications of Gideon v Wainwright at the state level

The Gideon v Wainwright affirmed that indigent defendants have a right to court-appointed counsel. This affirmation is as far as the ruling went, leaving the actual detail of who will pay these lawyers to represent indigent clients to individual states. Today, 18 states in the U.S. have passed the responsibility of funding indigent clients’ defense to counties, which means the less money available, the more cases individual public defenders have to take up because not enough lawyers can get hired[6]. According to Norman Lefstein, once dean in the Robert H. McKinney School of Law of Indiana University, a public defender in the state resigned less than a year into the job after being instructed to defend more than 300 defendants simultaneously[7].  The lack of a prescribed funding source for public defenders has left the principle weak in numerous jurisdictions. This weakness is evident in overwhelmed public defenders who either provide insufficient representation, such as presenting brief and invalid arguments in court, or wrong representation, such as pushing defendants to take guilty pleas in exchange for light sentences.

“Of the more than $146.5 billion spent annually on criminal justice, over half is allocated to support the police officers and prosecutors who investigate and prosecute cases, while only about two to three percent goes toward indigent defense.” (Cohen, 2013)[8]

Second, the Gideon v Wainwright ruling only applies to criminal cases, leaving indigent defendants in civil cases vulnerable to richer plaintiffs who may have well-paid attorneys[9]. Hence Breach of contract claims, Equitable Claims, Landlord/tenant issues, and tort claims are cases that poor people can hardly engage in, denying millions of Americans true justice based on their income level. The ruling is, therefore, insufficient in this respect and goes against the equality of all citizens before the law since it permits discrimination based on economic status or income level. A poor employee whose employer accuses of a breach of contract, whether guilty or innocent, cannot get a public defender in court simply because this is a civil matter which Gideon v Wainwright does not cover.

Third, at the state and county level, public defenders fall under the authority of elected officials or their appointees, i.e., governors or officials reporting to them. In many states, there are no independent public defender boards that supervise the lawyers or cater for their interests[10]. Hence the lawyers are exposed to the political considerations of elected officials, which results in various challenges. Firstly, such public defenders who are not independent of political influence are more likely to make decisions based on their employers’ rather than their client’s interests. Secondly, politicians are partial against using taxpayers’ money to sustain indigent criminal defense, hence the minuscule allocations that end up burdening the few public defenders willing to do the job.

Fourth, the Gideon v Wainwright ruling only guarantees legal representation for indigent defendants whose cases proceed to trial and upon the first appeal from a lower court sentence[11]. The Supreme Court also insists that indigent defendants do not have a right to representation when dealing with discretionary appeals and post-conviction procedures such as Coram Nobis and habeas corpus. Therefore innocent defendants who may fear the harsher sentences coming typically after trial – and considering the weaker defenses public defenders usually put up at the state level and lower – may choose to serve time for a crime they did not commit. This provision renders the ruling’s intent, and indeed what Clarence Earl Gideon fought for, futile at best.

Considering the insufficient number of public defenders in municipal and county courts, poor people and even children accused of petty crimes end up pleading guilty without representation just to ensure they get lighter sentences or fines. This scenario is favorable to the police who arrest them, the prosecutors who charge them, the judges who cover more cases much faster, and ultimately the private jails that receive them after sentencing. Considering the higher likelihood of police officers to go after people of color rather than white citizens, the racial makeup of American prisons has become disproportionately people of color. Add the lopsided laws such as Crime Bill (1994), which ended up ravaging minorities, and the result is mass incarceration and a booming private prison industry[12]. It is a system rigidly stacked against the poor, with virtually no escape routes.

Practical implications of Gideon v Wainwright at the federal level

Crimes that fall under the federal jurisdiction also attract public defenders’ interest when the defendants are unable to afford attorneys. Eighty-one national defender organizations serve 91 out of the 94 federal judicial districts in the U.S. and employ more than 3,000 legal professionals dedicated to indigent defendants’ service[13]. These workers are federal employees with salaries and perks comparable to those who serve other government departments and the U.S. Attorney’s office, all working under the chief federal public defender. These realities have led to some interesting results.

First, federal defenders tend to be better motivated because they have better pay than their state counterparts. The silence of Gideon v Wainwright on who had the responsibility of funding public defenders has created a pay disparity, which is evident in the manner courts dispense justice at the two levels[14]. Federal defender salaries are at par with other federal employees, which is higher than those of their counterparts at the state level. Furthermore, the federal judges whom they appear before are mostly better educated than state judges, better paid, and more willing to listen to defense arguments compared to their overworking peers in the state benches.

Second, federal defender offices have less financial constraints compared to state defenders. Since their funding draws directly from the federal government, which is less inclined to play politics with funding programs to appease temporary interests, they have more resources than state defenders. The result is better quality defense work, which ensures defendants experience a fairer shot at justice regardless of their impoverished condition, which is another gap Gideon v Wainwright overlooked.

Third, federal defenders tend to work on felony cases more than any other criminal case type, which contrasts with state defenders who handle numerous misdemeanor offenses. Even the kind of felonies at state and federal levels differ substantially, with the former handling everything from public urination, rape, assault to homicide while the latter deal mostly with drug, weapon, and economic offenses. When considered from a workload perspective, the stress levels state defenders encounter compared to their federal level counterparts becomes impossibly immense.

“The results were eye-opening. In Colorado, Missouri, and Rhode Island, they found that the typical public defender had two to three times the workload they should to provide an adequate defense. In Louisiana, defenders have almost five times the workload they should” (Oppel Jr & Patel, 2019)[15].

Fourth, federal and state defenders rely on different quality police work. Gideon v Wainwright did not bother to address the kind of ecosystem public defenders would work inside. Federal defenders usually represent defendants who have been the subject of thorough investigations because federal law enforcement agents such as those at the FBI are often better trained and resourced than police officers at the state level.  Hence, they are more likely to conduct lengthy, exhaustive investigations and facilitate various legal processes such as plea bargaining, making it easier for federal defenders to deal with their clients.

Finally, due to the caseload constraints, state public defender organizations hire entry-level lawyers who have just completed law school. In contrast, their federal counterparts hire more experienced attorneys into their ranks. National defender organizations prefer to hire fresh graduate lawyers into research and writing attorney positions.

Frustration, opposition, and sabotage

From the preceding, it is evident that when the Supreme Court issued the constitutional command extending the right to counsel, it very deliberately left the details of how to enshrine that right to lower courts and lawmakers as part of political policy formulation, creating an unfunded mandate. While the ruling may have brought justice to millions, it has also ensured injustice to millions as the lacuna persists. The wealthy know they can get an excellent lawyer based on their resources. In contrast, the poor know they may get a good lawyer based on where they live, what crime they have committed, how much their state budgeted for public defense, and what local politicians think regarding due process rights.

This lacuna has also attracted ideologists who have spotted an opportunity to test the strength of the ruling. In February 2019, conservative Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch handed down opinions in the case Garza v. Idaho in which they argued that Gideon v Wainwright went too far and should be scaled back or possibly overruled[16]. They argued that too many defendants were benefiting from court-appointed lawyers. The two justices explained that the Sixth Amendment promised only a small group of people a right to counsel, not everyone, while Gideon v Wainwright granted expansive rights, even to indigent defendants, whom the framers of the constitution never had in mind.

“the structural protections provided in the Sixth Amendment certainly seek to promote reliable criminal proceedings, but there is no substantive right to a particular level of reliability. In assuming otherwise, our ever-growing right-to-counsel precedents directly conflict with the government’s legitimate interest in the finality of criminal judgments.” (Garza v. Idaho, 2019)

In essence, the two justices argued that the case is more important than the outcome, the procedure more valuable than the rights. Almost four decades earlier and only two decades after the Gideon v Wainwright ruling, another group of conservative justices handed down a sentence in Strickland v. Washington (1984), which set standards for determining when a defender’s work for a defendant was ineffective, justifying a new trial[17]. Its actual intent was to restrict Gideon v Wainwright by excusing substandard lawyer work while denying defendants a right to competent counsel. The sobering bit is that Thomas and Gorsuch think that even incompetent counsel is too much privilege for indigent defendants. They want to scale back the gains of many decades to a time that generated more wrongful convictions than even the current broken system generates comparatively.

The Garza v. Idaho case came when it was evident that the decision to fund public defense organizations is entirely dependent on the goodwill in state legislatures and executives, which fine-tune their budgets. While Colorado and Massachusetts maintain efficient and well-resourced public defense departments with 100 percent funding, California, Mississippi, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have lawmakers who are not interested in protecting defendant rights hence poorly funded public defenders[18]. What this means is that indigent defendants in the former states are more likely to get good representation at critical stages of their trials. In contrast, defendants in the latter category are more likely to get ineffective counsel if they receive any representation at all.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Gideon v Wainwright did not go far enough in enshrining the right to counsel because it left loopholes that states and policymakers have used to weaken its impact, hampering access to justice.

To correct this, the Supreme Court needs to pronounce itself on several issues.

First, the court needs to place the responsibility of funding public defenders at the state level with the state government. Such a move would conform with the federal practice where the federal government supports the federal public defenders, ensuring meaningful work environments. The new dispensation will instantly ensure that state public defenders are not working at the whims of municipal politicians who may or may not provide them with sufficient funding when necessary.

Second, the court needs to extend the right to counsel to civil cases and level the judicial landscape, which is currently favorable to crime defendants. In civil cases, the right might even be necessary for indigent plaintiffs who cannot defend themselves against offenders who exploit their economic weaknesses, e.g., poor victims of defamation or other tort claims.

Third, the court needs to strongly assert the right of public defenders to answer to an independent judicial board that hires, supervises, and fires them rather than whimsical politicians. This protection will insulate public defenders from the unnecessary pressures of political expediency, enabling them to focus on defending their clients instead.

Fourth, the court needs to extend the right to counsel to defendants starting at the lowest magistrate courts instead of only at trial, helping offset the high case traffic at the state level.

In conclusion, Gideon v Wainwright was a milestone in the country’s judicial history, a watershed moment that vastly improved the experience of justice for millions. However, it did not go far enough and needed to perfection for the good of the country.

References

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 86 L. Ed. 1595 (1942).

Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2012). Fifty years of defiance and resistance after Gideon v. Wainwright. Yale LJ, 122, 2150.

Cohen, A. (2013, March 19). How Americans Lost the Right to Counsel, 50 Years After ‘Gideon’. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/how-americans-lost-the-right-to-counsel-50-years-after-gideon/273433/.

Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738, 586 U.S., 203 L. Ed. 2d 77 (2019).

King, J. (2012). Clarence Earl Gideon: Unlikely World-Shaker. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NADAL). Disponível em: https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx.

law.umich.edu. Federal versus State Work. https://www.law.umich.edu/mdefenders/students/Different-Types-of-Indigent-Defense/Pages/Federal-versus-State-Work.aspx.

Lefstein, N. (2018). Will We Ever Succeed in Fulfilling Gideon’s Promise. Ind. L. Rev., 51, 39.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964).

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

Oppel, R. A., & Patel, J. K. (2019, January 31). One Lawyer, 194 Felony Cases, and No Time. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html.

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932).

Primus, E. B. (2017). Defense counsel and public defense. Defense Counsel and Public Defense, in Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017 Forthcoming).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

Thompson, A. C. (2013). The Promise of Gideon: Providing High-Quality Public Defense in America. QUINNIPIAc L. REv., 31, 713.

US Congress, & United States of America. (1994). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Wright, R. F. (2010). Public Defender Elections and Popular Control over Criminal Justice. Mo. L. Rev., 75, 803.

 

[1] King, J. (2012). Clarence Earl Gideon: Unlikely World-Shaker. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NADAL). Disponível em: https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx.

[2] Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932).

[3] Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 86 L. Ed. 1595 (1942).

[4] Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964).

[5] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

[6] Primus, E. B. (2017). Defense counsel and public defense. Defense Counsel and Public Defense, in Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017 Forthcoming).

[7] Lefstein, N. (2018). Will We Ever Succeed in Fulfilling Gideon’s Promise. Ind. L. Rev., 51, 39.

[8] Cohen, A. (2013, March 19). How Americans Lost the Right to Counsel, 50 Years After ‘Gideon’. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/how-americans-lost-the-right-to-counsel-50-years-after-gideon/273433/.

[9] Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2012). Fifty years of defiance and resistance after Gideon v. Wainwright. Yale LJ, 122, 2150.

[10] Wright, R. F. (2010). Public Defender Elections and Popular Control over Criminal Justice. Mo. L. Rev., 75, 803.

[11] Ibid, 9

[12] US Congress, & United States of America. (1994). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

[13]

[14] law.umich.edu. Federal versus State Work. https://www.law.umich.edu/mdefenders/students/Different-Types-of-Indigent-Defense/Pages/Federal-versus-State-Work.aspx.

[15] Oppel, R. A., & Patel, J. K. (2019, January 31). One Lawyer, 194 Felony Cases, and No Time. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html.

[16] Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738, 586 U.S., 203 L. Ed. 2d 77 (2019).

[17] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

[18] Thompson, A. C. (2013). The Promise of Gideon: Providing High-Quality Public Defense in America. QUINNIPIAc L. REv., 31, 713.

 

To get your original copy of this completed paper, please Order Now