LECTURE: FEBRUARY 1ST, 2013
TOPIC: EXTENDING CIVIL RIGHTS INTO THE 1960'S: THE RISE OF LAWYERS
➔ Gideon vs. Wainwight 1963
◦ Clarence Earl Gideon
◦ Age 51
◦ Career minor criminal
◦ Appealing from Florida on theft conviction
◦ Impoverished. No assets, no credit.
▪ He was a white man which is not what you would expect in a Civil Rights case.
▪ He had been in and out of prisons for much of his life. He had 4 previous felony
▪ He had never been a professional criminal. He could not settle down to just work.
▪ Many felt he was a harmless human being.
▪ June 3 , 1961
• Someone broke into a pool hall in the middle of the night and robbed it.
• Stole cigarettes from the cigarette machine and broke into the jut box
• Someone claimed to have seen Gideon leave with bulging pockets and he received a
harsh sentence of 5 years in prison.
• Harsh sentence because of his previous criminal history.
• He felt personally it was too harsh. He claimed the State had no right to hold him
and that his sentence was unconstitutional because it went against the 4th
◦ He did not have legal counsel. He said to the judge that he was too poor to afford
a lawyer. He asked the judge to provide him with one.
◦ They said it was a petty larceny case and not a state case as their reasoning.
◦ Cases that can resolve legal controversies are favoured such as gay marriage →
◦ Gideon's appeal did not look hopeful. His case did not look good.Appeal request
has to copied 40 times for each Justice and it has to be printed not typed.
◦ Gideon did not have a lawyer which is the main point of this case.
◦ His petition for an appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court. Single copy, 5
pages long and written in pencil.
◦ He met the full requirements. Called pauper petitioner.
▪ In forma pauperis cases
• Rule 53 allows an impoverished person to file just one copy of a petition,
instead of the forty ordinarily required, and states that the Court will
make "due allowance" for technical errors so long as there is substantial
• Waives the general requirement that documents submitted to the Supreme
Court be printed. It says that in forma pauperis applications should be
typewritten "whenever possible," but in fact handwritten papers are
◦ Gideon did not ask for any special treatment. ◦ Revisions in the legal system needed to be made. It was time for change.
◦ He pleaded not guilty, had no funds, required a counsel. No allegations as to
◦ If the Supreme Court works in Gideon's favor then they would be required to
apply the law retrospectively.
◦ It was not written anywhere that counsel only had to be given in certain cases.
No matter what case, the defendant is to have a counsel.
◦ Vote: 9-0. They voted in favor of Gideon. He got a re trial.
◦ Florida had to release a large amount of inmates who were tried without counsel
to give them a fairer trial.
◦ Overwhelming power in criminal constitution.
➔ Betts vs. Brady (US Supreme Court, 1942)
◦ Had rejected the contention that the due process clause of the 14 Amendment provided a
flat guarantee of counsel in state criminal trials.
◦ Alawyer was constitutionally required only if to be tried without one amounted to “a denial
of fundamental fairness.” The crucial passage in the opinion read: "Asserted denial [of due
process of law] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That
which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the
universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other
considerations, fall short of such denial. In the application of such a concept there is always
the danger of falling into the habit of formulating the guarantee into a set of hard and fast
rules the application of which in a given case may be to ignore the qualifying factors...."
▪ No one cued into how the SC may actually be ready to make changes.
➔ Arizona vs. Miranda (1966)
◦ Ernesto Miranda
◦ Confessed to, and convicted of rape.
▪ March 2 , 1963
▪ An 18 year old woman named MaryAdams (not real name but we are using this because
we do not know) left work to go to the movie theater.As she got off the bus a guy
jumped her with a knife and repeatedly raped her in the backseat of his car after having
driven further away.
▪ Mary could not really identify him and failed a lie detector test.
▪ She saw a car one day that looked the same as that night (Police found Ernesto in it) and in the end she chose Ernesto in a line up.
• He said he saw a girl walking the streets.
• He told her not to make noise and get in the car.
• He then tied her hands and ankles together.
• Then He drove North.
• When he got there she untied the rope.
• He asked her if she would take her clothes off. She said no and that she was a virgin.
He took them off for her. He then said that he put his penis halfway in and reached a
climax but not in her.
• This is his ORAL statement:
◦ Seen a girl walking up street stopped a little ahead of her got out of car. Walked
towards her, grabbed her by the arm and asked to get in the car. Got in car
without force. Tied hands & ankles. Drove away for a few miles. Stopped asked
to take clothes off. Did not, asked me to take her back home. I started to take
clothes off her without any force, and with cooperation.Asked her to lay down
and she did. Could not get penis into vagina got about l/2 (half) inch in. Told her
to get clothes back on. Drove her home. I couldn't say I was sorry for what I had
done. But asked her to say a prayer for me.”
• Then he had a written statement:
“I, ErnestA. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and
of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and
with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement may be
used against me.”
• He states that he confessed and that he was not coerced.
• BUT his rights were not read to him until after he had confessedAND no one told
him that he had a right to counsel.
▪ They told him all the legal aspects they had to according the legal professionals.
▪ Since 1936, the courts have been clarifying and expanding the rules in terms of
confessions (i.e. coerced confessions).
• Further rules were formed based on what evidence was truly admissible and such.
• Example: Brown vs. Mississippi → confessions beaten out of them BUT Ernesto in
this case was not beaten.
• 5 Amendment
◦ Guarantees that no person should be compelled to be a witness against
themselves (do not need to give evidence against yourself).
◦ 1967-1973 → reported 10 cases where the 5 Amendment was an issue.