What do you think?
Rate this book
Gideon's Trumpet
Gideon's Trumpet is the story of this extraordinary case, from the night of June 3, 1961, when the Bay Harbor Poolroom was robbed, to the moment that Clarence Earl Gideon walked out of the Panama City, Florida, Courthouse a free man, on August 5, 1963.
Gideon's plea to the United States Supreme Court was deceptively simple: he had been denied a lawyer at the time of his trial for burglary because he could not afford one. To most laymen this would seem to provide grounds for a new trial, but the fact is that until the Supreme Court heard Gideon's case, an indigent prisoner did not have the right to a lawyer in many state courts.
The case of Gideon v. Wainwright changed all that. The Supreme Court decided to hear Gideon's plea, and it appointed Abe Fortas, a noted Washington lawyer, to represent him.
On March 18, 1963, the Court announced its historic decision: the Justices unanimously overruled an earlier case and held that henceforth the "due process of law" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment meant that poverty alone could not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to counsel. For Gideon this meant a new trial, and this time, with the help of a lawyer, he was acquitted.
But Gideon's Trumpet is far more than the dramatic story of a single case whose reverberations will change the lives of thousands of other prisoners; it is also an inspiring examination and interpretation of the role of the Supreme Court itself. The reader learns much of the history of the Court, of the constitutional and criminal law in the United States, of the philosophies of law of various Justices, of changing historical interpretations of the Bill of Rights and its various amendments, and of the modus operandi of the Court day by day.
Anthony Lewis writes about the complex and momentous issues involved in Gideon v. Wainwright with simplicity, clarity and precision, and his portrait of Gideon and his dogged fight for freedom is as poignant and, in the words of one distinguished reader, "as absorbing as the best fiction."
Gideon's plea to the United States Supreme Court was deceptively simple: he had been denied a lawyer at the time of his trial for burglary because he could not afford one. To most laymen this would seem to provide grounds for a new trial, but the fact is that until the Supreme Court heard Gideon's case, an indigent prisoner did not have the right to a lawyer in many state courts.
The case of Gideon v. Wainwright changed all that. The Supreme Court decided to hear Gideon's plea, and it appointed Abe Fortas, a noted Washington lawyer, to represent him.
On March 18, 1963, the Court announced its historic decision: the Justices unanimously overruled an earlier case and held that henceforth the "due process of law" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment meant that poverty alone could not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to counsel. For Gideon this meant a new trial, and this time, with the help of a lawyer, he was acquitted.
But Gideon's Trumpet is far more than the dramatic story of a single case whose reverberations will change the lives of thousands of other prisoners; it is also an inspiring examination and interpretation of the role of the Supreme Court itself. The reader learns much of the history of the Court, of the constitutional and criminal law in the United States, of the philosophies of law of various Justices, of changing historical interpretations of the Bill of Rights and its various amendments, and of the modus operandi of the Court day by day.
Anthony Lewis writes about the complex and momentous issues involved in Gideon v. Wainwright with simplicity, clarity and precision, and his portrait of Gideon and his dogged fight for freedom is as poignant and, in the words of one distinguished reader, "as absorbing as the best fiction."
277 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
186 people are currently reading
3129 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Lewis
18 books23 followersAnthony Lewis was an American intellectual and columnist for the New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 277 reviews
April 27, 2016
A lot of different things helped push me down the road to law school. There's that scene in The Verdict when Paul Newman tells Charlotte Rampling about justice("See, the jury believes. The jury wants to believe...All of them...say, 'It's a sham, it's rigged, you can't fight city hall.' But when they step into that jury box...you just barely see it in their eyes..."). There's also the (as yet unrealized) promise of financial security. Maybe the most noble motivator I had was Anthony Lewis's Gideon's Trumpet.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor drifter with a criminal history. On June 3, 1961, he was accused of taking $5 and some beer from a Florida pool hall. He was put on trial, denied counsel, and forced to defend himself pro se. Unsurprisingly, he lost, and was sentenced to five years in prison. He sent a petition to the United States Supreme Court, which took his case. The result was a case known to all law students: Gideon vs. Wainwright.
This was the case that gave life to the 6th Amendment, guaranteeing criminal defendants the right to counsel (since modified to require counsel if the defendant faces six months or more imprisonment).
This is a fascinating book because too often, the important cases that come down from the Supreme Court feel like exercises in the arcane. The nine justices sit in their marble temple and exclaim from on high. They thread factual needles, maneuver through procedural morasses, and carve their rules one stultifying opinion at a time. You forget - they forget - that there are lives at stake. That their decisions don't only affect "the law", they affect people.
Gideon's Trumpet is the story of a mostly-forgotten man that changed constitutional law. Anthony Lewis, who was a great writer for the New York Times, does an excellent job telling this story. I always enjoy reading books by journalists; whatever you sacrifice by not having an expert as the author, you get back in fact finding and narrative ability.
At the time of the Gideon case, Lewis shows how the tide of history was flowing in favor of the defendant. This was the heyday of the Warren Court, which remembered that little item called the Bill of Rights, and how it was supposed to protect the People from the Government. The Court's direction was underlined by its decision to appoint the eminent Abe Fortas to represent Clarence Gideon.
The Supreme Court ruled in Gideon's favor. They found that the right to counsel is a fundamental right, necessary for there to be a fair trial. This ruling was made applicable to the states through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon was granted a new trial and given a lawyer. The jury deliberated for one hour.
And he won.
The landscape of criminal law changed for the better post-Gideon. The Sixth Amendment has always given the right to counsel, but left out that thorny point about paying (and with lawyers, that's important). As Lewis points out, at the time of the decision, nearly 40 states already provided counsel for felony defendants. What Gideon did, however, was not only to provide attorneys for defendants in those other states, but to make the right to an attorney fundamental, and one that couldn't be taken away by a state having second thoughts. Moreover, many states had been appointing private attorneys to defend alleged criminals. This is like having a pediatrician doing surgery; sure, it might work out all right, and the basic training is there, but you really should have an expert. Gideon led to the rise of public defenders, providing the necessary bulwark against the expertise, manpower, and limitless resources of the state.
In America, you are guilty as soon as you're arrested. That's just how things have evolved and there's no sense arguing otherwise. Still, it's good to remember, from time to time, that the Goddesss Justice holds a scale. On one side is the state, its prosecutors, investigators, police officers, and detectives. On the other side, for a period in 1963, was one man sitting in his prison cell scribbling a petition to the Supreme Court.
This man balanced the scales. Gideon's Trumpet tells his story.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor drifter with a criminal history. On June 3, 1961, he was accused of taking $5 and some beer from a Florida pool hall. He was put on trial, denied counsel, and forced to defend himself pro se. Unsurprisingly, he lost, and was sentenced to five years in prison. He sent a petition to the United States Supreme Court, which took his case. The result was a case known to all law students: Gideon vs. Wainwright.
This was the case that gave life to the 6th Amendment, guaranteeing criminal defendants the right to counsel (since modified to require counsel if the defendant faces six months or more imprisonment).
This is a fascinating book because too often, the important cases that come down from the Supreme Court feel like exercises in the arcane. The nine justices sit in their marble temple and exclaim from on high. They thread factual needles, maneuver through procedural morasses, and carve their rules one stultifying opinion at a time. You forget - they forget - that there are lives at stake. That their decisions don't only affect "the law", they affect people.
Gideon's Trumpet is the story of a mostly-forgotten man that changed constitutional law. Anthony Lewis, who was a great writer for the New York Times, does an excellent job telling this story. I always enjoy reading books by journalists; whatever you sacrifice by not having an expert as the author, you get back in fact finding and narrative ability.
At the time of the Gideon case, Lewis shows how the tide of history was flowing in favor of the defendant. This was the heyday of the Warren Court, which remembered that little item called the Bill of Rights, and how it was supposed to protect the People from the Government. The Court's direction was underlined by its decision to appoint the eminent Abe Fortas to represent Clarence Gideon.
The Court had chosen someone of more than ordinary experience and ability to represent Gideon, and the honor carried with it a special responsibility. If that most basic right, to be represented by counsel, was now to be extended, to all those charged with serious crimes in any court, the justices would want all possible intellectual support for taking the step. Fortas saw his job as reaching each of the nine.
The Supreme Court ruled in Gideon's favor. They found that the right to counsel is a fundamental right, necessary for there to be a fair trial. This ruling was made applicable to the states through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon was granted a new trial and given a lawyer. The jury deliberated for one hour.
And he won.
The landscape of criminal law changed for the better post-Gideon. The Sixth Amendment has always given the right to counsel, but left out that thorny point about paying (and with lawyers, that's important). As Lewis points out, at the time of the decision, nearly 40 states already provided counsel for felony defendants. What Gideon did, however, was not only to provide attorneys for defendants in those other states, but to make the right to an attorney fundamental, and one that couldn't be taken away by a state having second thoughts. Moreover, many states had been appointing private attorneys to defend alleged criminals. This is like having a pediatrician doing surgery; sure, it might work out all right, and the basic training is there, but you really should have an expert. Gideon led to the rise of public defenders, providing the necessary bulwark against the expertise, manpower, and limitless resources of the state.
In America, you are guilty as soon as you're arrested. That's just how things have evolved and there's no sense arguing otherwise. Still, it's good to remember, from time to time, that the Goddesss Justice holds a scale. On one side is the state, its prosecutors, investigators, police officers, and detectives. On the other side, for a period in 1963, was one man sitting in his prison cell scribbling a petition to the Supreme Court.
This man balanced the scales. Gideon's Trumpet tells his story.
November 29, 2007
I read this book before I went to law school. It was supposed to be the inspiring story of how we all came to have the right to an attorney.
I thought it was dull and was actually the story of how a florida redneck who was arrested for burglary got in touch with a bunch of high powered attorneys with an agenda.
Appellate law is not interesting even when it is novelized.
I thought it was dull and was actually the story of how a florida redneck who was arrested for burglary got in touch with a bunch of high powered attorneys with an agenda.
Appellate law is not interesting even when it is novelized.
August 5, 2016
For those who don't know, Gideon v. Wainwright was the landmark Supreme Court case that established the federal requirement for criminal courts to provide defense attorneys for the indigent. In other words, it's the reason we have public defenders today.
The case began when Clarence Gideon, a poor white man sitting in a Florida prison for petty larceny, wrote to the Supreme Court that his 14th Amendment right to due process of law had been violated because the court that convicted him didn't provide him with a lawyer when he asked for one. At that time, courts would only appoint free attorneys under special circumstances, like capital crimes or blatant discrimination. Gideon's case did not meet those criteria. He was a white man accused of petty theft. So his case addressed the issue: is the right to an attorney a universal right as part of due process of law?
What makes Gideon's story so inspiring is that it's a David and Goliath story. The Supreme Court rejects many more cases than it takes on, and that they chose Gideon's petition, which was handwritten in pencil and full of grammar and spelling errors, shows that the little man can sometimes get justice. The story was made into a TV movie starring Henry Fonda seventeen years later, and it's easy to understand why. Everyone loves to see the underdog triumph against the odds.
But the book itself is much more educational than it is entertaining. As a matter of fact, it's pretty legalistic, and I don't think I would have had the patience for it without my paralegal education. But for all the legal history, there are some sections that humanize it: Gideon's original petition to the Supreme Court, Gideon's letter to his attorney telling the story of his life, and excerpts from the transcript of his final criminal trial in Florida. That mix of primary sources and author's commentary make it award-winning journalism, but as a reader, I would have liked even more primary sources. As the author said, our justice system gets hammered out based on the real interests of individuals, so the more we can hear of those individuals' voices, the better.
One last tidbit of particular interest to me: Abe Fortas, the attorney who represented Gideon in the Supreme Court, was Jewish. The author of the book is also Jewish. So when it was all over (either the case or the research for the book; I'm not sure), Mr. Fortas presented Mr. Lewis with a shofar -the kind of "trumpet" the Biblical Gideon would have blown before battle. May Hashem surround His justice in mercy.
The case began when Clarence Gideon, a poor white man sitting in a Florida prison for petty larceny, wrote to the Supreme Court that his 14th Amendment right to due process of law had been violated because the court that convicted him didn't provide him with a lawyer when he asked for one. At that time, courts would only appoint free attorneys under special circumstances, like capital crimes or blatant discrimination. Gideon's case did not meet those criteria. He was a white man accused of petty theft. So his case addressed the issue: is the right to an attorney a universal right as part of due process of law?
What makes Gideon's story so inspiring is that it's a David and Goliath story. The Supreme Court rejects many more cases than it takes on, and that they chose Gideon's petition, which was handwritten in pencil and full of grammar and spelling errors, shows that the little man can sometimes get justice. The story was made into a TV movie starring Henry Fonda seventeen years later, and it's easy to understand why. Everyone loves to see the underdog triumph against the odds.
But the book itself is much more educational than it is entertaining. As a matter of fact, it's pretty legalistic, and I don't think I would have had the patience for it without my paralegal education. But for all the legal history, there are some sections that humanize it: Gideon's original petition to the Supreme Court, Gideon's letter to his attorney telling the story of his life, and excerpts from the transcript of his final criminal trial in Florida. That mix of primary sources and author's commentary make it award-winning journalism, but as a reader, I would have liked even more primary sources. As the author said, our justice system gets hammered out based on the real interests of individuals, so the more we can hear of those individuals' voices, the better.
One last tidbit of particular interest to me: Abe Fortas, the attorney who represented Gideon in the Supreme Court, was Jewish. The author of the book is also Jewish. So when it was all over (either the case or the research for the book; I'm not sure), Mr. Fortas presented Mr. Lewis with a shofar -the kind of "trumpet" the Biblical Gideon would have blown before battle. May Hashem surround His justice in mercy.
December 21, 2014
Okay, I'm a retired public defender and Gideon is the patron saint of our profession so I can be accused of some bias in reviewing this book. Nevertheless, I have to admit that the average reader would probably find this book about as interesting as watching paint dry. Earlier this year I read a book about the Scottsboro Boys, another event that ended up going to the Supreme Court just like Gideon's did. Unfortunately, this book had none of the drama or suspense that Scottsboro did. The Scottsboro book dealt primarily with the facts of the case and the trials that took place. This book was entirely focused on the appellate process as Gideon's case and trial were completely unremarkable. Now this is where I leave the average reader. While a discussion of the process of review by the Supreme Court will probably hold no interest for the typical reader I found it fascinating. I also found the treatment of the constitutional issues equally intriguing. So the bottom line here is that this is a book primarily for lawyers and especially criminal lawyers, better yet, criminal defense lawyers.
August 16, 2022
1.5 STARS
Interesting enough at first but slowly became 200 pages of boringness.
Interesting enough at first but slowly became 200 pages of boringness.
September 8, 2014
After reading this book, I understand why it has become a law-school staple for generations. First, and importantly, it's short, always necessary in book assignments. Second, it provides a concise and solid overview of how the Supreme Court "did its own work" in Brandeis's phrase (down to some now antiquated details, such as the dumbwaiter that carried briefs up and down in the head Clerk's office).
Third, and more importantly, the book puts real human stories at it's center. There is Clarence Earl Gideon, the itinerant gambler and oft-convicted burglar who's handwritten plea to the court demanding assistance of counsel due to his indigence starts the whole process that leads to the historic case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), guaranteeing all criminal defendants such assistance. The author gives Gideon wide berth to tell his own tale, including by reproducing all 14 pages of Gideon's letter to his lawyer, which gives an ungrammatical but touching description of his own life. There is Abe Fortas, once the New Deal lawyer and wunderkind, at this point a successful corporate defender, but who would soon be appointed to (and soon after have to resign from) the Supreme Court. He is nominated as Gideon's advocate by his former friends on the bench Justices Black, Brennan, Douglas, and Warner, and the full force of his expensive law firm is put to compiling the perfect brief for what they knew to be an historic case. Ironically considering their clients, the man arguing against the indigent Gideon and for the State of Florida was much less accomplished. Bruce Jacob was a small-time prosecutor, still in his twenties when he took the appeal of the case. By the time it reached the Supreme Court he had just taken a job with a private firm, and was forced to work on this case in his spare time, with his wife as secretary, travelling long distances because his local law library had few of the necessary books.
Finally, the book has survived because it places the case in the wider history of American civil liberties. Before reading this book, I had been a little baffled by the almost religious belief many lawyers had in the importance of a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but this book helped explain why many at the time saw it as so crucial. Just as the Supreme Court was expanding defendants' rights to say, exclude illegally-obtained evidence or exclude coerced confessions, they knew that these rights would give defendants little solace if as many as 60%, according to one estimate of state courts, didn't have their own lawyer. The Supreme Court and others therefore saw the 6th Amendment right to counsel as in effect the guarantor of all other rights they were promulgating. Before Gideon, the Court in Betty v. Brady (1942) had already allowed for counsel in special circumstances, such as in capital cases or where racial animus was involved, and since 1950 they had turned down every conviction that had come to them without counsel, often based on vague issues like how a changed plea deal could prejudice the jury. The right to counsel was becoming an all-encompassing way to strike down whatever seemed wrong in a case, and Gideon at least cabined and defined these rights for all to see.
The author, long-time New York Times Court reporter Anthony Lewis, does argue for what today would seem to be an undeniably naive view of the Supreme Court's role in American life. He claims that the Court, guided by the light of its own reason, unaffected by partisan or "regional" (read, Southern) political influences, would gradually help steer the country into the right path on all sorts of issues. Today, few would be so sanguine, or, for that matter, so dismissive of the "historical" interpretation of the Constitution (nobody seems to even be concerned that the 6th Amendment did not guarantee everybody counsel in either the 18th or 19th Century. In fact, the Court did not even use the 6th amendment at the time, but claimed without evidence that the due process clause just demanded free counsel). But the book still stands as a monument to solid reporting and the value of looking at individual cases to understand legal history.
July 26, 2007
No one today would argue against the fact that Gideon v. Wainwright had a positive impact on the legal system. People should have the right to an attorney and this book explains not only why, but also celebrates the fact that a poor prisoner could affect our law. In fact, "How one man, a poor prisoner, took his case to the Supreme Court-- and changed the law of the United States" sits over the title on the wonderfully designed cover of my edition of the book.
However, I got a strange feeling while reading the book. It didn't really seem like Gideon had a whole to do with changing the law. He made the claim to the court, but as Anthony Lewis says,
"The claim that Gideon presented to the Supreme Court was, in sum, one that the Court could hear. Whether the Court would hear it was another and very different question.
If the Supreme Court had to hear every single case people in our nation wanted it to hear, then I agree with Lewis that the judicial process would most likely quickly break down. So how does the Court decide which cases to hear?
As Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson says in 1949:
"To remain effective, the Supreme Court must continue to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolution will have immediate importance far beyond the particular facts and parties involved. Those of you whose petitions for centiorari are granted by the Supreme Court will know, therefore, that you... represent not only your clients, but tremendously important principles, upon which are based the plans, hopes and aspirations of a great many people throughout the country."
So, wait, is it really Gideon than that's actually changing things? Or is it the system that was developed to weed through the garbage and find these cases that are of "tremendously important principles."
Lewis' book goes into all the valid reasons the Supreme Court won't hear cases. And, again, there are a lot of good to reasons not to bring a case to the Supreme Court. It's towards the end when I began to feel a bit uneasy. Lewis talks about "great currents of change" that can be felt. The words "timing and strategy" are thrown about. What bothers me is thinking about the cases that the Court refuses to hear because they aren't part of the current legal trend.
Lewis then describes the honor of being asked to represent a poor man in the Supreme Court. It's a very well-off attorney, Abe Fortes, who gets this distinction. Lewis touches briefly on Gideon's fire and determination, but he devotes a whole chapter to the merits of Mr. Fortes and even the attorney representing the other side. At first, I got the feeling these people were all members of some kind of exclusive boys' club. But, since this was written in 1962, it was before minorities or women were major players in these kind of legal arenas. Ultimately, I decided the disparity I sensed is more about class. We are this elite, highly educated group of people who know what is best for you. And that is what the system is designed to produce and I have no idea how I would change it exactly, if I'd even want to.
All in all, I'm left conflicted-- wondering if it's a misrepresentation to say this man changed the law. It seems to me that he's actually not that consequential in this story. The impression this book leaves is that the court had already decided this issue needed to be revisited and if it hadn't been him, they would have found someone else.
However, I got a strange feeling while reading the book. It didn't really seem like Gideon had a whole to do with changing the law. He made the claim to the court, but as Anthony Lewis says,
"The claim that Gideon presented to the Supreme Court was, in sum, one that the Court could hear. Whether the Court would hear it was another and very different question.
If the Supreme Court had to hear every single case people in our nation wanted it to hear, then I agree with Lewis that the judicial process would most likely quickly break down. So how does the Court decide which cases to hear?
As Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson says in 1949:
"To remain effective, the Supreme Court must continue to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolution will have immediate importance far beyond the particular facts and parties involved. Those of you whose petitions for centiorari are granted by the Supreme Court will know, therefore, that you... represent not only your clients, but tremendously important principles, upon which are based the plans, hopes and aspirations of a great many people throughout the country."
So, wait, is it really Gideon than that's actually changing things? Or is it the system that was developed to weed through the garbage and find these cases that are of "tremendously important principles."
Lewis' book goes into all the valid reasons the Supreme Court won't hear cases. And, again, there are a lot of good to reasons not to bring a case to the Supreme Court. It's towards the end when I began to feel a bit uneasy. Lewis talks about "great currents of change" that can be felt. The words "timing and strategy" are thrown about. What bothers me is thinking about the cases that the Court refuses to hear because they aren't part of the current legal trend.
Lewis then describes the honor of being asked to represent a poor man in the Supreme Court. It's a very well-off attorney, Abe Fortes, who gets this distinction. Lewis touches briefly on Gideon's fire and determination, but he devotes a whole chapter to the merits of Mr. Fortes and even the attorney representing the other side. At first, I got the feeling these people were all members of some kind of exclusive boys' club. But, since this was written in 1962, it was before minorities or women were major players in these kind of legal arenas. Ultimately, I decided the disparity I sensed is more about class. We are this elite, highly educated group of people who know what is best for you. And that is what the system is designed to produce and I have no idea how I would change it exactly, if I'd even want to.
All in all, I'm left conflicted-- wondering if it's a misrepresentation to say this man changed the law. It seems to me that he's actually not that consequential in this story. The impression this book leaves is that the court had already decided this issue needed to be revisited and if it hadn't been him, they would have found someone else.
August 4, 2021
4 stars as required reading when I was in college. It was amazing.
Date read is a guess.
Date read is a guess.
July 1, 2025
I thought this was pretty interesting, I will like law school. It is starting soon! Unfortunate Alan Dershowitz foreword
March 21, 2013
I have always been a reader, and whenever possible, I have tried to read what my children are reading. It started out with 'The Hungry Caterpillar', progressed to the Harry Potter series and now I am immersed in British Victorian novels and socio-political classics (which it turns out that I am no better at deciphering in my 50's than I was in my 20's) . So when my eldest son decided to go to law school, my husband and I encouraged him to read some of the recommended classics in the history of law, and pormised that we would read them as well.
My very first book in this project to better prepare myself to be the mother of a lawyer related the history of the Supreme Court case 'Gideon vs. Wainwright', which was decided on March 18, 1963, exactly 50 years ago this week.
While there are many many stories about what is wrong with America, this is a story about what is right. The book was written in 1964, and delineates the path that Gideon was able to take to actually get his case heard before the Supreme Court and the immediate implications that the decision had.
Gideon was in prison when he brought his case forward. He had had several previous convictions and spent a percentage of his adult life behind bars. He was tried on a felony charge in Florida, and he asked for an attorney to represent him--he was refused. Gideon felt that he did not get a fair trial because he had to defend himself, but the Florida Supreme Court disagreed. Gideon did not ask for his aquittal nor did he ask to be retried. His contention was that he was not treated fairly, and a clerk who read all such petitions from those who cannot navigate the Supreme Court system in the ordinary way agreed with him. But a precedent, from as recently as 1942, disagreed with them--Betts vs. Brady was a case that upheld the right of states to make their own decision about legal representation. So Gideon's case faced an uphill battle.
The story is very well told here, and is understandable to someone who has little knowledge of how the Supreme Court works. One high point is that when the attorney for Florida informs other state Attorney Generals that this case is going before the Supreme Court and asks them for an amicus curiae brief in support of states rights in this matter, 23 states respond with an amicus curiae brief in support of Gideon instead. That warmed my heart.
The implications of the Gideon case were far reaching--when the court decided that all defendents should have access to an attorney, regardless of their ability to pay, it necessitated the devlopment of the public defender system, which up until that point did not exist, and it required the development of a way to pay for such a system as well. It didn't solve all the problems with criminal jurisprudence, but it certainly righted one wrong--and not all that long ago.
November 16, 2016
The Law is never perfect. It's development is always detrmined by the thinking of the time. Once a principle is considered inapplicable at a certain stage of life, the experts are normally called in to give an opinion as to the relevance of it. This was the case when Gideon filed a motion at the United States Supreme Court arguing that his rights was infringed by a Florida court when he was denied Counsel during his criminal trial.
Abe Fortas, acting for Gideon had to translate his arguments into the technical legal language required by law. He acted for him in the Supreme Court, having been appointed by the Judges at the time. He was a successful advocated. The State of Florida was represented by the Assistant attorney general Jacob Brown, who later went into private practice. Twenty three states appeared as friends of the court, buy argued for the overulling of Bretts vs. Brady. Only two states argued for the retention of the verdict.
The court unanimously ruled in favor of a depature from the rule in Bretts vs. Brady. What remained is the practicality of having counsel in every criminal case a person faces.
Abe Fortas, acting for Gideon had to translate his arguments into the technical legal language required by law. He acted for him in the Supreme Court, having been appointed by the Judges at the time. He was a successful advocated. The State of Florida was represented by the Assistant attorney general Jacob Brown, who later went into private practice. Twenty three states appeared as friends of the court, buy argued for the overulling of Bretts vs. Brady. Only two states argued for the retention of the verdict.
The court unanimously ruled in favor of a depature from the rule in Bretts vs. Brady. What remained is the practicality of having counsel in every criminal case a person faces.
December 22, 2009
A very good read. Definitely gets one all rah-rah democracy and rah-rah constitution yet with nuance and thoughtfulness. Also, not one-sided as Lewis does a good job of showing Ass’t Attorney General Jacob as a sympathetic guy who really did believe that everyone has a right to counsel but ultimately believed more in states’ rights. I felt bad for the guy sending out a letter to all 50 states asking for an Amicus Brief to support Betts v. Brady but ending up getting Amicus Briefs from many of the states on the other side of Betts v. Brady.
I’m not a lawyer so a few of the paragraphs required a bit of re-reading to make sure I was really following but, still, totally readable for a non-lawyer. Lewis might get a little lofty at the end, which is appropriate though it maybe goes on a for a bit too long.
I’m not a lawyer so a few of the paragraphs required a bit of re-reading to make sure I was really following but, still, totally readable for a non-lawyer. Lewis might get a little lofty at the end, which is appropriate though it maybe goes on a for a bit too long.
May 28, 2010
"...Gideon is something of a 'nut,' [and:] his maniacal distrust and suspicion lead him to the very borders of insanity. Upon the shoulders of such persons are our great rights carried."
I'm a public defender for prison inmates. When I read the statement above in the epilogue, I was amused and relieved to learn that Gideon was a lot like many of my own clients.
I'm a public defender for prison inmates. When I read the statement above in the epilogue, I was amused and relieved to learn that Gideon was a lot like many of my own clients.
May 30, 2019
An interesting book for the details it gives into how the Supreme Court works. We get details on how petitions are made, how clerkships work, how briefs are formulated. (Some of these details are dated and inaccurate for today, and unfortunately a modern reader not familiar with the Supreme Court would have no idea. For example, the composition of lawyers arguing cases before the Court has narrowed a lot.)
The subtitle is rather misleading, though, even though Lewis tries to back it up:
> The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is in part a testament to a single human being. Against all the odds of inertia and ignorance and fear of state power, Clarence Earl Gideon insisted that he had a right to a lawyer and kept on insisting all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In fact, this is pretty much nonsense. The Supreme Court case and its outcome had very little to do with anything from Gideon. It was not about his insistence, his persistence—no, he was just there at the right time. The court wanted a case in order to change Betts v. Brady, and Gideon came along. His lawyers argued the case well, while the other side only tried halfheartedly since they knew they'd lost coming in.
> His triumph there shows that the poorest and least powerful of men—a convict with not even a friend to visit him in prison—can take his cause to the highest court in the land and bring about a fundamental change in the law.
And this moral is, therefore, also wrong. (This also means that a large part of the book, describing all the details of Gideon's life, turns out to be irrelevant.)
It is not just details that have fallen out of date. My biggest problem is that Lewis seems determined to blow a trumpet for the Supreme Court, papering over or simply ignoring its flaws.
> The freedom to decide as one’s conscience and intellect demand, without fear of political retribution, is a rare luxury for any office-holder, and it certainly helps to explain what happens to men when they don the robes of a Supreme Court justice. The southern Senator required to go through the motions of defending segregation—and many in the Senate today are only going through the motions—can shed that dispiriting burden if he goes on the bench. The state judge who has to look to political bosses for re-election—as many do—cuts that tie upon appointment to the Supreme Court. The independence given to the justices enables them to do things that others know are right but have never had the courage or the determination to do by themselves.
Today politicians on the Supreme Court parrot Fox News. Is it good that they can do so "without fear of political retribution"? Is it good that they have the "courage and determination" to commit rape? Obviously, one can tilt too far to one side or the other, but Lewis's determination to look at the Court through rose-colored glasses, and skip over its darker side, makes his book worse than naive.
The subtitle is rather misleading, though, even though Lewis tries to back it up:
> The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is in part a testament to a single human being. Against all the odds of inertia and ignorance and fear of state power, Clarence Earl Gideon insisted that he had a right to a lawyer and kept on insisting all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In fact, this is pretty much nonsense. The Supreme Court case and its outcome had very little to do with anything from Gideon. It was not about his insistence, his persistence—no, he was just there at the right time. The court wanted a case in order to change Betts v. Brady, and Gideon came along. His lawyers argued the case well, while the other side only tried halfheartedly since they knew they'd lost coming in.
> His triumph there shows that the poorest and least powerful of men—a convict with not even a friend to visit him in prison—can take his cause to the highest court in the land and bring about a fundamental change in the law.
And this moral is, therefore, also wrong. (This also means that a large part of the book, describing all the details of Gideon's life, turns out to be irrelevant.)
It is not just details that have fallen out of date. My biggest problem is that Lewis seems determined to blow a trumpet for the Supreme Court, papering over or simply ignoring its flaws.
> The freedom to decide as one’s conscience and intellect demand, without fear of political retribution, is a rare luxury for any office-holder, and it certainly helps to explain what happens to men when they don the robes of a Supreme Court justice. The southern Senator required to go through the motions of defending segregation—and many in the Senate today are only going through the motions—can shed that dispiriting burden if he goes on the bench. The state judge who has to look to political bosses for re-election—as many do—cuts that tie upon appointment to the Supreme Court. The independence given to the justices enables them to do things that others know are right but have never had the courage or the determination to do by themselves.
Today politicians on the Supreme Court parrot Fox News. Is it good that they can do so "without fear of political retribution"? Is it good that they have the "courage and determination" to commit rape? Obviously, one can tilt too far to one side or the other, but Lewis's determination to look at the Court through rose-colored glasses, and skip over its darker side, makes his book worse than naive.
June 22, 2018
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking oldie. Very well written, it brings the case alive, and the Supreme Court even more so. Gideon was an "irascible" 50+, hard-gambling, four-time felon. In the penitentiary for the fourth time, he tried to appeal his case--this time he was innocent, he said. He should have had a court-supplied lawyer. In 1963, his hand-written, ungrammatical appeal got to the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled that only Federal cases and death-penalty cases were entitled to such counsel. This case changed the court's mind. His re-trial declared Gideon innocent, as he had claimed. We get to know all the justices, a little, and the lawyers who argued the case quite well. We also learn what makes the Supreme Court unique among Federal bodies (though not so very different from the California Court of Appeal, where my husband spent his career).
A 4+-star book; my bar for 5 stars is very high.
A 4+-star book; my bar for 5 stars is very high.
September 12, 2019
There is very little here of interest to a non-lawyer. Over fifty years old so understandably dated in many ways but of course the sclerotic judicial system is actually largely the same. I wanted to read it because I’m a civil rights lawyer and it’s a “classic” of the genre.
Gideon himself was remarkable—the reprints of his letters and trial testimony show a clear, honest, impassioned self-advocate. And I very much enjoyed the tellings of how Abe Fortas prepared for the case, and the few genuine surprises about its reception. (It’s amazing today to imagine a green 26-year-old AAG defending at the Supreme Court, and I love that his one seeming stroke of genius—letting the other AGs know and trying to get them on his side—backfired so spectacularly when they banded together on an amicus against him!)
But far too much of the book is stodgy constitutional law interpretation that’s woefully outdated. I had expected a more thrilling set of play-by-plays and not two chapters on whether the 14th Amendment “adopted,” “incorporated,” or “absorbed” the procedural protections of the Sixth Amendment (Zzzzzzz just like in law school).
Gideon himself was remarkable—the reprints of his letters and trial testimony show a clear, honest, impassioned self-advocate. And I very much enjoyed the tellings of how Abe Fortas prepared for the case, and the few genuine surprises about its reception. (It’s amazing today to imagine a green 26-year-old AAG defending at the Supreme Court, and I love that his one seeming stroke of genius—letting the other AGs know and trying to get them on his side—backfired so spectacularly when they banded together on an amicus against him!)
But far too much of the book is stodgy constitutional law interpretation that’s woefully outdated. I had expected a more thrilling set of play-by-plays and not two chapters on whether the 14th Amendment “adopted,” “incorporated,” or “absorbed” the procedural protections of the Sixth Amendment (Zzzzzzz just like in law school).
December 18, 2024
This was awesome, thank you to Rachel for the rec! I’m inspired in my motivations to become a lawyer and a public defender all over again. This retelling of one of the most fundamental individual rights upheld by the Supreme Court presents lessons in the power of federalism, the checks and balances of the American government, and more importantly, the value of being able to listen to and understand people.
I want to read it again! Also fun primary source element was the author’s mention that Florida’s western panhandle was still undeveloped in the 60s when this was written.
“At its best, the Court is a great teacher, illuminating issues and then drawing support for further steps from the more sensitive public attitudes it has helped to create.”
“Of all the men I have met he most knows why he is doing what he does. I don’t like the s.o.b., but if I were in trouble I’d want him on my side. He’s the most resourceful, the boldest, the most thorough lawyer I know.”
“he works for reform of the criminal law because he thinks it is right for society, not because of any illusions about criminals.”
I want to read it again! Also fun primary source element was the author’s mention that Florida’s western panhandle was still undeveloped in the 60s when this was written.
“At its best, the Court is a great teacher, illuminating issues and then drawing support for further steps from the more sensitive public attitudes it has helped to create.”
“Of all the men I have met he most knows why he is doing what he does. I don’t like the s.o.b., but if I were in trouble I’d want him on my side. He’s the most resourceful, the boldest, the most thorough lawyer I know.”
“he works for reform of the criminal law because he thinks it is right for society, not because of any illusions about criminals.”
March 25, 2024
I read this book for my politics and judicial process class and it was okay! I liked learned some unique characteristics about the Supreme Court and how our Supreme Court can be such a positive force for change when our Justices serve as almost the social and political gauge. When there is too much tension, the court should sense and act in response by using their jurisdiction to chose pressing and relevant cases. Personally, not my favorite because it very long and often slow but could be interesting if you are super into law!
Read
February 3, 2025This book is copyrighted 1964 and my paperback version was printed in 1966. I purchased this for a poli sci course in college, and I believe I read it at the time. Since I hung onto it for so long I had to read it again! I think I saved the book because it was really good. This is an accounting of the Supreme Court's version of "how a bill becomes a law." Instead it is how a case becomes a landmark Supreme Court decision. In this case it was Gideon v. Wainwright which established the requirement that all criminal defendants are required to have legal representation regardless of their ability to pay for their prosecution in courts decided in 1963. The antecedents to this case began in 1931, so it took 30 years for the court to reach the conclusion that all criminal defendants should receive representation. The author was a NYT reporter and did an exceptional job telling the story and providing all the background that went along with the story. Very informative. One notable quote given the current circumstances of the Supreme Court that I would like to share. Justice Frankfurter "was motivated by a deep concern for the Supreme Court as an institution, a fear that it might destroy itself if it pressed its power too far." I believe we have arrived at that day. I will be recycling this old paperback.
July 20, 2023
I think this has high reviews because of the case itself and the importance of public defense. The story of Gideon is essential for any future public defender but this book does a mediocre job telling it. The book really plays up Gideon being a hero, and I didn’t enjoy how it novelized his story when he was truly just some guy.
September 19, 2023
Huge fan of the Supreme Court case that established the right to legal counsel for those on trial for felonies, not a huge fan of the book -- extremely dated and only uses masculine pronouns for attorneys, clerks, etc., despite the presence of women in the profession at the time of publication. Enjoyed reading Gideon's procedural history, summaries of briefs, selections from oral argument.
June 12, 2019
A cool book. Written in the 60s and in both style and substance sometimes its REAL obvious, but its also thekind of clearly formatted non-fiction that comes from good research and an honest enjoyment of the subject. A look at the american justice system when it works
dnf-zone
November 6, 2020I couldn't do it. I was drowning in details.
March 2, 2022
maybe i should go to law school
March 18, 2022
A little too much sexism for me. Also wish it gave more credit to Gideon, the first third of the book Lewis paints him as a pawn in the legal system that was just looking for a case with standing.
December 28, 2023
Gideon’s Trumpet is a good primer for the uninitiated such as myself. It’s an overview of the basic workings of the Supreme Court as well as a brief historical window into early 60’s criminal law. Gideon was stubborn, and that changed a lot of things for a lot of people.
November 17, 2018
Gideon's Trumpet: How One Man, a Poor Prisoner, Took His Case to the Supreme Court-And Changed the Law of the United States explore one of the significant court cases in American jurisprudence, Gideon v. Wainwright. Anthony Lewis writes about the case that gave everyone the right to an attorney whether they can afford it or not. This is part History, Law, and the great American crime novel. He looks at not only the case, but the history of the right to a lawyer and surrounding times diametrically opposed to giving that right.
Gideon's Trumpet: How One Man, a Poor Prisoner, Took His Case to the Supreme Court-And Changed the Law of the United States looks at Gideon, a lifelong petty criminal and pulls no punches. He is neither a good man nor a nice man. His life was a mess. Yet, the book never lets the reader forget that he has rights too and deftly ensures that the reader is left with the thought that this right protects the better segment of society along with the criminal class. Anthony Lewis pulls off this feat by showing how big the case became over the course of travels through the Federal court system, but always comes back to the local issue of Gideon in Florida. While the case affects everyone in the country, it also affects a petty criminal living a small life.
This is a classic text and is a must read.
Gideon's Trumpet: How One Man, a Poor Prisoner, Took His Case to the Supreme Court-And Changed the Law of the United States looks at Gideon, a lifelong petty criminal and pulls no punches. He is neither a good man nor a nice man. His life was a mess. Yet, the book never lets the reader forget that he has rights too and deftly ensures that the reader is left with the thought that this right protects the better segment of society along with the criminal class. Anthony Lewis pulls off this feat by showing how big the case became over the course of travels through the Federal court system, but always comes back to the local issue of Gideon in Florida. While the case affects everyone in the country, it also affects a petty criminal living a small life.
This is a classic text and is a must read.
November 6, 2020
There are many things I dislike about Gideon's Trumpet.
First, this book is more of a legal history book than an actual story. The inner workings of the case are recounted in a very overly formalistic way as if you are reading a high school history book. Further, this book isn't really as much about the case as it is a history of the Supreme Court (including its minutiae and jurisprudence) from about 1930-1960.
Second, I really don't understand who the target audience is for this book. The author is clearly a non-lawyer who is just vomiting all the legal research he did into a series of paragraphs. It simultaneously (i) gets way too bogged down by legal formalism / Supreme Court rules / constitutional law (e.g., stare decisis, jurisdiction, standing, federalism, etc.) for anyone who is non-legally trained to be interested in, and (ii) describes things at a level that is so surface that anyone who is legally trained won't be gaining anything from the recapitulations. Literally, 1/3 of the book or more describes legal theories, how lawyers argue things, how cases are decided, or why something does or doesn't hold water in court. As someone who just finished law school, it was very mundane and monotonous. I've heard that reading this before law school can be worthwhile, and while I maybe agree, I don't think that is a very broad target audience.
Lastly, and most gratingly, the author has this disgusting reverence for the U.S. Supreme Court. He describes it in such flowery language as only an entitled Harvard academic from the mid-1960s would. There is an entire chapter near the end that is just an homage to the Supreme Court and how it is this shining beacon of American democracy that is unparalleled in its power to advance individual rights and protect individual freedoms. Having studied constitutional law, this opinion is beyond naive and farcical. This is exacerbated by the present political climate in which Merrick Garland was not nominated but ACB was 4 years later. It really puts the lie to the author's entire diatribe about how apolitical the justices are. I found this part of the book obnoxious and quintessentially out-of-touch / academic (even for the 1960s).
I did like chapter 11, which described the oral arguments in detail, as well as the epilogue, which described Gideon's retrial after remand, which is why it salvaged 2 stars.
If you are looking for a boring, brief history of the Supreme Court by an outsider who's genuinely amazed by the institution, this is your book. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
First, this book is more of a legal history book than an actual story. The inner workings of the case are recounted in a very overly formalistic way as if you are reading a high school history book. Further, this book isn't really as much about the case as it is a history of the Supreme Court (including its minutiae and jurisprudence) from about 1930-1960.
Second, I really don't understand who the target audience is for this book. The author is clearly a non-lawyer who is just vomiting all the legal research he did into a series of paragraphs. It simultaneously (i) gets way too bogged down by legal formalism / Supreme Court rules / constitutional law (e.g., stare decisis, jurisdiction, standing, federalism, etc.) for anyone who is non-legally trained to be interested in, and (ii) describes things at a level that is so surface that anyone who is legally trained won't be gaining anything from the recapitulations. Literally, 1/3 of the book or more describes legal theories, how lawyers argue things, how cases are decided, or why something does or doesn't hold water in court. As someone who just finished law school, it was very mundane and monotonous. I've heard that reading this before law school can be worthwhile, and while I maybe agree, I don't think that is a very broad target audience.
Lastly, and most gratingly, the author has this disgusting reverence for the U.S. Supreme Court. He describes it in such flowery language as only an entitled Harvard academic from the mid-1960s would. There is an entire chapter near the end that is just an homage to the Supreme Court and how it is this shining beacon of American democracy that is unparalleled in its power to advance individual rights and protect individual freedoms. Having studied constitutional law, this opinion is beyond naive and farcical. This is exacerbated by the present political climate in which Merrick Garland was not nominated but ACB was 4 years later. It really puts the lie to the author's entire diatribe about how apolitical the justices are. I found this part of the book obnoxious and quintessentially out-of-touch / academic (even for the 1960s).
I did like chapter 11, which described the oral arguments in detail, as well as the epilogue, which described Gideon's retrial after remand, which is why it salvaged 2 stars.
If you are looking for a boring, brief history of the Supreme Court by an outsider who's genuinely amazed by the institution, this is your book. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
November 12, 2022
Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude. The Dude from Los Ángeles.
-The Stranger, The Big Lewbowski
Clarence Earl Gideon possessed a unique combination of ignorance of contemporary 6th amendment jurisprudence, an ability to cross-examine witnesses as well as any layman, and the drive and access to materials in prison to get his habeus corpus petition past SCOTUS exacting demands (not to mention timing) to drastically change the tide of history.
Unfortunately, Anthony “The Father of Legal Journalism” Lewis possessed a unique ability to talk about 👨⚖️ 🌭 (who took no part in the case) in lieu of telling a story. From now on when I see my local newspaper regurgitate a police press release and call it journalism, I’m going to shake my fist and curse Tony.
-The Stranger, The Big Lewbowski
Clarence Earl Gideon possessed a unique combination of ignorance of contemporary 6th amendment jurisprudence, an ability to cross-examine witnesses as well as any layman, and the drive and access to materials in prison to get his habeus corpus petition past SCOTUS exacting demands (not to mention timing) to drastically change the tide of history.
Unfortunately, Anthony “The Father of Legal Journalism” Lewis possessed a unique ability to talk about 👨⚖️ 🌭 (who took no part in the case) in lieu of telling a story. From now on when I see my local newspaper regurgitate a police press release and call it journalism, I’m going to shake my fist and curse Tony.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 277 reviews