Gideon's Trumpet (1980) - full transcript

I will not be proud
of this biography.

There will be no cause of pride,

nor will it be the absolute truth.

I cannot remember, or desire
to remember that well.

So, being just a human
being, I will try,

although I know that I cannot to

justify myself through
this summary.

Hey, my love, is Mel there?

I think he's sleeping
on the couch.

So you better wake him up.

This is Mel.



Mel... breaking into the
Poolroom. Come out here.

Hey... come here.

Yes, sir.

Do you know anything about that?

Do you know Clarence Earl Gideon?

Yes.

I saw him leave with
a bottle of wine.

Then he made a phone
call, around the corner.

And he waited for a
taxi to pick him up.

How long has that been?

A little while ago... it
was about half past five.

Four bottles of wine,
twelve bottles of soda,

twelve cans of beer.

How much money did
you say is gone?



About $5 from the
cigarette machine

and $60 from the jukebox,

all of 50, 10 and 20 coins.

Did you call for me?

Mr Cobb did.

What is the trouble, Mr Cobb?

Did you catch anyone around
here, 5:30 in the morning?

Yes, sir.

And who was it?

Clarence Earl Gideon.

Where did you leave him?

What's the problem?

Yeah... he asked... if anybody
asked, I didn't see him.

Ah... ah...

Where did you leave him?

Clarence, I need to talk to
you about the poolroom case.

What about poolroom?

Bay Harbour... Didn't you go
in there and steal the coins

from the record player and
the cigarette machine?

No sir. I don't. I don't know
what you're talking about.

Do you... have anything
in your pockets?

Come on, come on, empty
it here, let me see...

Finish your beer.

Tampa, State of Florida,
against Clarence Earl Gideon

August 4, 1961

Is the State prepared to
take this case to trial?

The State is prepared,
Your Honour.

Defence ready?

I am not prepared, Your Honour.

Why aren't you prepared?

Ah... I don't have a lawyer.

Why not?

Didn't you know that your
case would be tried today?

Yes, sir, I knew.

So, why didn't you get a lawyer
and prepare for the trial?

Ah... I have no money...

I don't have a cent...
I want you to

nominate someone who
can represent me...

Come on, come on,
come on Mr Gideon...

I can't understand
what you're saying.

I don't understand, the clerk
didn't understand it either.

Come on...

Now, repeat what you said, so
that we can understand, please

I want you to appoint a lawyer
to represent me at this trial.

Ah... Mr Gideon, I am
sorry, but I cannot

appoint counsel to represent
you in this case.

Under the laws of the State
of Florida, the only time

the Court can appoint counsel
to represent a defendant

is when that person is charged
with a capital offence...

I'm entitled to a lawyer.

Let the record, show that the
defendant asked the Court

to appoint a lawyer to
represent him at the

trial and the Court
denied the request,

and informed the accused
that the only time the Court

would appoint a lawyer
to represent a defendant

it would be in the event
that the defendant

was charged with a
capital offence.

Now, I'll ask the jury...

if you will give Mr Gideon
the same fair trial

in consideration
that they would give

if he was represented by a lawyer

since you're not?

Now, Mr Gideon, you can
go back to your place.

You can make your opening
statement, Mr Harris.

The State will prove
that, on June 3, 1961,

Clarence Earl Gideon
unlawfully and feloniously

broke into and invaded someone
else's establishment,

that is, Bay Harbour Poolroom,

with the intention of committing a

misdemeanour within
that establishment

that is, a petty larceny.

The State will prove this
beyond reasonable doubt,

through the testimony
of eyewitnesses.

Mister Gideon...

Come on, get closer...
You can address the

jury... Stay here where
you can see them,

and say what you hope the evidence
will prove in your favour.

Speak loudly so they can hear you.

I didn't do it and the
evidence will show that...

I had nothing to do with it.

Start, Mr Harris.

The state calls Lester Wade.

Lester Wade.

Raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the
truth, with God's help?

Yes, sir, I swear.

You can testify.

Say your name and address, please.

Lester Wade, West Avenue,
108, Panama City, Florida.

Mr Wade, where were you,
at 5:30 am, last June 3rd?

I was outside the Bay
Harbour Poolroom.

Say what you observed.

I saw Clarence Earl Gideon
inside the poolroom.

Do you see him now?

Yes, sir.

Point it at the court, please.

Let the record show he
indicated the defendant.

And what else did you see?

Well, I was watching him
inside the poolroom

through the window
for a few minutes.

Then I saw him leave with a
bottle of wine in his hand.

He made a call on the corner,

then he took the
taxi that he called.

Well, what did you do then?

Then I went back to the poolroom
and saw that it had been stolen.

Specifically, what did you see?

Ah, it was the front...
the front of

the cigarette machine was torn off

and the coin box was on
the empty pool table.

The witness is yours.

Mr Wade, what were you doing
outside the poolroom,

at 5:30 in the morning?

I had just arrived from a
dance down Apalachicola,

ah... I stayed out all night...

Have you never been arrested?

Objection.

Sustained.

Ah... what can I ask him?

About whether he was
never arrested?

You may ask if you have never
been convicted of a crime.

Have you never been
convicted of a crime?

No sir.

Are you absolutely sure I was
carrying a bottle of wine?

Yes, sir, I know you were.

And how do you know?

Because I saw it in your hand.

Do you have any more questions
for the witness, Mr Gideon?

I think not...

The witness may step down.

Mr Gideon, please go
back to your seat.

Mr Stafford, do you operate
the Bay Harbour Poolroom?

Yes, sir.

Tell us what you know
of the events of

the early morning
of June 3rd, 1961.

Well, I closed the
poolroom around midnight.

I locked all the
doors and windows.

And when I came back
the next morning,

at seven o'clock, the
deputy was there.

Somebody smashed the window and

broken in the cigarette
machine and the

jukebox and took all the money.

Was there anything other
than money missing?

A small amount of
beer and some wine.

It's your witness.

Is your name Leo Stafford?

That's right.

And you run Bay Harbour Poolroom?

That's right.

Describe it.

It's poolroom...

it has pool tables...
and also a bar...

Describe the bar part of it.

It's a long bar,
right in the middle

of the room. It's just a bar.

Well, you are excused.
You may step down.

The State has no more
witnesses, Your Honour.

Mr Gideon do you have any
witnesses you wish to call?

My landlady, Mrs Edna Curtis.

Dona Edna Curtis.

Left hand on the Bible, and
raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the
truth, with God's help?

- I swear.
- Sit down.

Mrs Curtis.

You own the Bay Harbour
Hotel, opposite

the poolroom, and I
live there, don't I?

Yes, you do.

When I want to make a
phone call, at night,

I use the hotel phone,
or I cross the street...

I protest, Your Honour.
He's leading the witness.

You cross the street to
use the public phone...

so as not to disturb others...

you're very considerate.

Thank you.

During the time that I
lived in the hotel,

Did you ever see me drunk?

No.

And you had me as a drunk?

No.

Did you ever hear
that I got drunk?

No.

Thank you, Ms Curt, I appreciate
your testimony, that's all.

I have no questions for
the witness, Your Honour.

Any more witnesses, Mister Gideon?

Not in the moment.

This is your only chance.

If you want to call any more
witnesses, you have to call now.

If not, it's time for the
final arguments for the jury.

Mr Gideon, the DA's
office speaks first.

Gentlemen of the jury.

You heard from the
eyewitnesses that the poolroom

were broken into sometime in
the early morning of June 3rd.

And that the accused Mr Gideon

was seen inside,

alone at that time.

He was seen coming out with a
bottle of wine in his hands.

And then he called a taxi,

which took him away from
the scene of his crime.

I think you'll all agree that the

state has proved its case,

beyond any reasonable doubt.

Now Mr Gideon.

Gentlemen of the jury.

You've heard witnesses from
both sides at this trial.

And you had a chance to hear them.

I want to say to
you right now that

I didn't do what they said I did.

I also want to remind you that
the law says I am innocent

until proven guilty.

The law is absolutely
clear on this point.

That's all and thank
you very much.

In order to find the
defendant guilty,

you must determine that the
crime was committed in

Bay County within
the last two years

and by Mr Gideon.

You can all go out and start
the deliberation now.

What do you think?

It is hard to say.

Good luck.

Do you call this a fair trial?

It is the biggest injustice I have
ever seen from Chesapeake to Ohio.

You seemed very sincere.

This is important.

I believed in you.

And I bet the jury did too.

I... should... have a lawyer...
yeah... I asked for...

At least...

Did I ask you the right questions?

I thought you did.

I needed to show that
I was not a bum.

I never...

break into a place just
to steal wine and beer.

And you, knowing
me as you know me,

never having seen me drunk,

I think this must have
helped, I don't know.

I'm sure they've all seen it.

A lawyer would do better.

I was caught again, you know,

a few years ago, before
I moved to the hotel...

for something I didn't do

They didn't give me a
lawyer that time either.

They left me in jail

two months without a
hearing. Two months.

That was when my
wife and I broke up.

As in social work.

I was told that the boys were
already being well looked after,

I was in jail, and she
was working there,

how could they be?

So they took the boys

and interned in an orphanage

No one needs to tell
me that I have not

been the best father in the world.

But this time I can
take 6 months...

a year until...

The judges are coming back.

So early?

You will have to leave, lady.

It is not allowed to sit here.

Get up.

Sit down.

Deliver the verdict to
the officer, please.

The defendant wants to get up.

Clarence Earl Gideon,

you were found guilty by the jury.

I have given them a report
on your past, Mr Gideon.

It is said that you have
been in prison four times,

three times for theft

and one for seizing
government property.

Is correct?

Yes, sir.

Do you have anything to say before
the Court passes the sentence?

No sir.

Clarence Earl Gideon,

I condemn you to be confined

at the State
Penitentiary in Reikford

the maximum period prescribed by
law for this offence: five years.

You are now inmates at
Reikford State Prison.

Some have been here before

and know what is expected of you.

Others were not.

They will have their
clothes sterilised.

Have your assets checked.

They will cut their hair
and be disinfected.

We hope you all cooperate.

This means do not speak
and follow instructions.

If a guard says "move,"
you will jump.

When you go to a guard,
they will say "Sir"

and will be subject to all Florida

Correctional Division
regulations and laws.

Put the clothes you want
in one of those bags

and here those who want
to donate to charity.

And you will go there

to be photographed,

take fingerprints

and take a shower

And without conversation.

Don't be impressed.

Hey you. Are you
deaf? Are you blind?

No.

No what?

I am neither deaf nor blind.

Turn there.

After the float,

they will take you to the
Vocational Guidance Centre.

In short, what will
happen is this.

A free man will come
in, dressed in a suit,

White shirt,

will measure your IQ,

ask what jobs do you want...

wish for anything,

as long as it's in here,

you're not crazy about
wanting to work

on a farm in the hot sun, are you?

What are you going to do?

I go to the workshop,

I am auto mechanic,

repair generators, batteries
and things like that...

They always need a good mechanic.

I don't know how to
do any of that...

Ah, ah... in that case,
you go to the sector

where the ancients rule
us who are not qualified.

That's when you're going to
have to be brave for real.

I got 40 years old
for armed robbery.

How long it will stay?

Yeah... I still don't know.

Are you in charge here?

Exactly.

I want to see everything
you have about

human rights...

the rights of a man to be tried.

Everything, really?

You might be interested
in about 200 years...

They are there, in
the second corridor.

Can I take the books?

It depends on where
you want to take...

One at a time.

Sign here.

Opens after dinner?

Only if someone asks me.

I wanted to come
back after dinner.

So I think I'll open it.

64712, report to the infirmary.

64712, report to the infirmary.

Hey, boy.

Which is?

Yeah... let's fight for a
cigarette on your arm...

No, I don't want to
dispute anything...

Come, fight with both
hands if you want...

Hey, grandpa...

What the hell are you doing?

Hey.

Charles from the
library said you're

trying to get your
sentence suspended.

Is it because they didn't
give you a lawyer?

Do you think there's
anything there?

"No state will deprive
anyone of life,

property or freedom,

without due process...

It is the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution

of the United States of America.

I asked for a lawyer, and
they didn't give it to me.

It means that I was
deprived of my freedom,

without the legal process.

Was it true for me because I
didn't have a lawyer either?

I went to cane just like you.

What will they have
to do if you win?

What are they going to have to do?

Release you?

Perhaps...

Yeah... but I still
have to read a lot...

Even if you were guilty?

I didn't do that.

I know.

But, what if it was?

Even so, he would be
entitled to a lawyer.

They can't put you in jail,

without giving you a fair trial.

My God.

How is it going?

Good...

Great.

Here, take a cigarette.

Come on, take some.

Come on, put it in your pocket.

How are you reading? Were
you at the library today?

Not yet.

You go there later, don't you?

It's... only when it's over.

It's great.

Then, when you leave the
library, maybe we can talk?

About what?

Now, about my judgement.

What do you think, huh?

Hey...

why don't you get out
and let him work?

For you to give him 3
cents / hour, right?

Later?

Hey, Gideon,

how is it going?

I have a few things to do.

First, a petition to the Court

and still do a habeas corpus...

then ask the United
States Supreme Court

to issue a certification order...

certiorari...

then I need to sign a declaration

that I can't even pay
$100 for the costs

it's a petition...

in forma pauperis...

Yeah... the other guys are
already getting hopeful...

Ah...

You know, I've seen
a lot of petitions

to the Supreme Court
written in this room.

I wrote a couple myself.

None of them were accepted?

Been here for two months,

and everyone thinks you are Moses,

who came to live in
the promised land.

Yeah... maybe it's...

Ah... is there a typewriter here?

Do not.

The law says Supreme
Court petitions

must be typed,

"That if possible".

I do not believe that
they are against you,

if you write by hand.

Clarence.

Can I have a look, a minute?

Kemp?

Ah, Mr President.

Don't get up, don't get up.

In 15 minutes, I will
be ready for our tour.

Is it okay for you?

President, do you have a minute?

Ah... 15 minutes.

A petition from a Florida
prisoner has just arrived,

who claims to have
asked the local court

to grant you a lawyer
at your trial,

and they didn't grant it.

Is there a special circumstance?

Illiterate? Incompetent?

No sir.

Complex charge against him?

No sir...

break-in with the intention
of committing a small theft.

Betts against Brady...

He's out of luck... unless

he can demonstrate

special circumstances
or disadvantage.

We decided that 20 years ago.

He's not claiming any
special circumstances

He just says that,

according to the Constitution,

a poor man is entitled
to have a lawyer

to help you in your defence.

He's asking us to change
our minds, my son.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, it looks like we do
this every 20 years...

Tell the court clerk to write
to the State of Florida,

requesting information.

This will clarify
the legal issues,

informing us of the
underlying facts.

Then write a memo
to the Ministers.

We will resolve in conference,

as with any other
certiorari petition.

Yes, sir. Thank you sir.

Thank you, Arthur.

Thirteen minutes.

Good day sir.

Good Morning.

This morning,

Today we have 2 resources,

asking us to admit his calls,

26 certiorari petitions,

10 petitions from the poor,

and 3 petitions for a new hearing.

So, I would like to start.

Can we start with the case for the
right to freedom in Louisiana?

I believe that we must not only
grant the petition for review,

as well as revoking convictions
for lack of sufficient evidence...

Since now.

I agree.

Six blacks convicted
of order violation

at the Shreedow Port bus station

for attempted discrimination.

The only thing they
did wrong was to

violate the practise
of segregation

and this practise is
constitutionally unacceptable.

Somebody else?

How many approve the review and
answer the request for review?

And how many revoke
the conviction now?

Gideon versus Cochran.

Here it is clear that we
are being questioned...

Is it time to take
Betts and Brady down?

Well, although I can
imagine that what I will

say will be a big shock
to everyone here...

could I start?

I never thought it wasn't time

to overturn that
unfortunate decision.

I voted against Betts before

and I'm happy to have
lived long enough,

to take another bite of the apple.

The truth of the
matter is that I never

harboured the slightest suspicion,

this time at least,
that I was wrong.

The rule on which Betts
is founded established

that a lawyer is
constitutionally required

only if it is practised
against someone

a denial of a fundamental right.

We understand that the flexibility
of the principle would protect us.

I felt it before,
and I feel it now,

that we need an absolute rule.

The right to a lawyer may
not be considered essential

in some countries
for a fair trial,

but in ours, it is.

And I think there
is a considerable

danger in formulating
inflexible laws

if there are no qualitative
factors to justify them,

and then impose those laws on
states against their will.

It was what we decided
twenty years ago.

And I still consider it a very
valid approach: flexibility.

Well, I consider myself a
flexible man in most cases,

but not about the rights
of an accused citizen.

I have a basic difficulty
about the problem.

We must anticipate the
prerogatives of Florida courts

and, especially, to
its legislators?

If they believe that everyone
is entitled to a lawyer,

what they are going to pay
for, so let them speak.

What if they don't think so?

What if they decide
not to pay for them?

What will happen to Gideon?

Who will he ask for protection?

I read his petition. He seems
to have medium intelligence.

He could defend himself
without a lawyer.

Properly, no.

And when is someone
entitled to a lawyer?

So who is arrested? When is it
processed? When are you on trial?

And are we going to talk about
practical consequences?

How many prisoners
are there in this

country at the moment
who have no lawyer?

Are many...

Ah... ah... ah...

And if we're going to decree now
that Gideon's trial was unfair,

so theirs went too.

What will we do about it?

Order a new trial
for each of them?

I would like to return
to Mister Gideon.

The other side had a lawyer.

Was it fair that he didn't?

That's not the question?

Very well.

This was a very simple case:

break-in with the intention
of committing a small theft.

And even a very simple man,

assuming Mr Gideon
is a simple man,

and it's not safe to
assume that completely.

Gentlemen, even a simple man can
defend himself in a simple case...

But is it fair? Is it
fundamentally fair?

Small theft may have been. But
a small sentence was not.

These are all extremely important
issues that can be decided,

if we know of the petition.

Is there anyone in favour
of knowing the case?

Clarence, Clarence.

Hey, Clarence. Two letters arrived
for you from the Supreme Court.

Two cards. You heard?

Yes, I heard.

Did correspondence arrive for me?

Is it resolved?

Gideon versus Cochran.

Motion to proceed
in forma pauperis,

and the petition for
certiorari warrant

were granted.

It is necessary that you

immediately send a
signed petition,

asking the Court to appoint
a lawyer to represent him.

It is necessary that you

immediately send a
signed petition,

asking the Court to appoint
a lawyer to represent him.

It just means that they agreed to

listen to me. But we
still have to win.

The question is very simple.

I asked the Court to appoint a

lawyer for me and
the Court refused.

Is it a simple matter,
Mrs Lawrence?

I didn't understand, Mr Fortas.

Mr Gideon says the
question is very simple.

Gives the Constitution
entitles a poor man,

accused of crime, of having
a lawyer by your side?

Does that mean she doesn't?

Do not.

But if you're asking
me, Mr Fortas,

no question about the
law is very simple...

That's exactly why
Mr Gideon needed

a lawyer in the first place.

I want to congratulate
you, sir, on

being nominated to
represent Gideon.

Thanks.

John, I am counting on you
to help me prove my thesis.

Abel will search and work with
me to prepare the instruction

Jim, you will do research

and John will help you until
you return to the University.

I want a memo about

how state law has
changed regarding the

appointment of a
lawyer over the years.

In real terms, how
many accused of crime

go to trial without a lawyer.

If the Constitution
now effectively

guarantees a lawyer for all cases.

What are the additional
demands of lawyers?

I want your opinions

about the suggest about the
standardisation of the case,

because we are arguing that
citizens, even if accused

of minor infractions,
should have lawyers...

Some ministers will not
be easy to convince...

perhaps we should
restrict ourselves

only to cases of more
serious crimes...

The Supreme Court
asked me to support

that everyone has the
right to a lawyer...

But I don't represent all people;

I represent only
Clarence Earl Gideon.

If I can get you out of
prison on any pretext,

or show that there were
special circumstances

that justified the
presence of a lawyer

insanity, incompetence
or whatever...

We cannot conclude from the file,

but maybe Gideon is a black man,

I could argue that in
the South, a black man

does not have the same
treatment as a white man.

If I can get him out
of the law anyway,

isn't this my first
obligation to Gideon?

Without a doubt, Abe.

Few things displease
Supreme Court ministers

than a lawyer who puts aside
his client's interests,

in their zeal to make some
major change in the law.

It would be an anticlimax,

if I released Gideon,
without establishing a new

case law that recognised
the right to a lawyer...

But I will find out if there
were any special circumstances.

Add that, please, to
my letter to Gideon:

For my convenience,

I would be very satisfied
if you send me

a careful and detailed
biographical description

when and where you
were born, education,

occupation, family, detentions

and any other information
that may occur to you.

I want to emphasise that it
is not absolutely necessary,

but it will only serve to
give me some more basis.

I know that you will be
extremely careful and send me

with absolute precision any
information that may interest me.

My mother was very strict... My...

My life as a child was
strictly disciplined.

My parents had the
best moral customs

and they were members of
the local Baptist Church,

which I joined when I
was about 13 years old.

My mother to this
day has never done

anything that could be
wrongly classified.

My brother and sister are
also good-natured people.

I suppose I am what is
called an individualist,

a person who does not behave.

Anyway, my parents
were always fighting,

I was the scapegoat
for these fights.

At 14, I decided to
run away from home.

My mum found out where I
was and picked me up.

She sent me to a
correctional prison,

and I managed to
escape from there.

It was terribly cold,
and shortly after,

I stole some clothes
from a local store.

But I was caught the next day,

still dressed, by the store owner.

My mother asked the judge to
send me to the reformatory,

where I stayed for a
period of 3 years.

Of all the prisons I've been
to, this was the worst.

I still have scars on my body from
the lashes I received there...

Anyway, I got parole after a year,

I was then 16 years old...

So, Gideon is not
black... he is not

illiterate... and he is
certainly not insane.

The judge not only had
no prejudice against

him, but tried to help
him defend himself.

He didn't do a very
good job, but it

wasn't his role to be
a defence attorney.

All of this makes
this case perfect

for challenging the best decision.

Without special circumstances,

only

Gideon was entitled
to ask for a lawyer,

because he was accused of a crime,

just as anyone in the
country, accused of a

crime, would have the
right to a lawyer...

And that is how we
will debate the case.

But I would like to say to
the ministers the following:

we will not speak, we
will go down to the

prisoners and watch how
they defend themselves...

Sorry if I couldn't write
better. I did my best.

Me, Clarence Earl Gideon,

I hereby come to ask
Your Excellency

to allow me to read with my

You don't mind if we talk a little
about my judgement, do you?

Of course not.

I... it... happened...
a long time ago.

I don't remember the
main points well...

Well, we'll see that later.

Ok?

What's the problem?

If I win the case, will
they have to let me out?

What do you mean?

Can they judge me
for the same thing

again... this time with a lawyer?

I do not know.

What will you do if you win?

First, you may have
to be tried again for

the same charge, this
time with a lawyer.

Can they do that?

Do not know. I am
studying this now.

They're rascals...

I still need to fight in
court for my children.

I received a letter.

They go to court, to try
to get them out of me.

But I have news for
the court. They

don't know who they're
messing with.

I do not know.

If I had a home of my own

and could take care of them,

and get a job as a mechanic,

somewhere,

or I could open a workshop,

to work on one car at a time...

Who will argue for the
State of Florida?

His name is Jacob.

Do you know what I
find interesting?

In a common criminal case, the
state has all the advantages,

but now, at the Supreme
Court, Gideon has

Abe Fortas on his side,
plus you and me,

And the State of Florida
has a young assistant

prosecutor who must never
have set foot in this room.

This time, things got even.

Don't start feeling sorry for
the miserable, until we win...

The most honourable
Minister President and the

Ministers of the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Listen, listen, listen...

Anyone who has matters for the
United States Supreme Court,

are urged to approach and
dedicate their attention,

because the Court is now
settling in and taking a seat.

God save the United States
and its exalted Court.

Number 1-55, Clarence
Earl Gideon pleading,

versus H.G. Cochran
Jr., Director of the

Florida State
Correctional Division.

Attorney present.

Mr Fortas.

Mr President of this
Court of Justice,

I hope you will like the Court.

This case presents a
delicate problem,

without the contest
of irrelevant facts.

Clarence Earl Gideon
is supposed to

have broken into Bay
Harbour Poolroom

and stolen, yes, some cigarettes
and an unsettled amount of money.

He was arrested and put on trial.

He asked the judge
to appoint a lawyer

to defend him, and
the judge refused.

So Gideon did his best
to defend himself.

He was sentenced to 5 years
and sent to the Penitentiary.

The case file does not indicate
that Gideon was a person

of low intelligence, nor was
the judge arbitrary with him.

But for me, this case
demonstrates the

basic difficulty of
Betts versus Brady.

It shows that no man,
however intelligent,

can properly conduct
his own defence.

But that's not the point,
is it, Mr Fortas?

In the Betts case, this Court
did not support the assumption

that a man can defend
himself without a lawyer,

like anyone. It was not?
Everyone knows not.

I fully agree, Minister, with
the point to which you refer,

that a man cannot get a fair
trial without a lawyer.

But the Betts case established
that this consideration

it should be less valued than
the demands of federalism.

In other words, the Betts case
expressed the understanding

that this Court had at the time,

that the State of Florida
or any other State

is responsible for
deciding for itself

whether defendants,
before the courts,

should have the right to counsel,

and the Supreme Court should not
impose this requirement on them.

But Minister, this Court
has often held that,

when there are special
circumstances,

the accused has the right to the
lawyer that the court chooses,

and now, to all the
debates on legal issues,

to start with this famous 1942
case, that fascinating question.

And when I read the vows of this
Court. I hope to be forgiven...

I will say that my
heart was filled

with compassion for the judges,

who had to review those records
and look for special circumstances

that would give the defendant
the right to a lawyer...

Such a review by the Supreme
Court on a case-by-case

basis of state court
decisions cannot be sound.

The intervention
must be in the least

abrasive and least
corrosive manner possible.

It is clear that the special
circumstance approach is wrong.

How can a judge, when a
man is prosecuted, look

at him and say "there are
special circumstances"?

A judge says, "You
look ignorant"... or

"does your case involve
complex facts"?

It is administratively
impractical.

States are recognising this.

Some are, Minister.

Professor Kandy Sage's research
indicates that 37 states

they now provide lawyers
for poor people

in all cases for the
most serious crimes.

Another 8 currently do the
same with material practises.

And 5 do not grant the lawyer
except in capital cases.

But, with due respect,
I do not agree

with the implication
in your question

that the fact that States act
on their own would be an

argument against the Supreme
Court taking a step forward now.

I believe that the growing
acceptance of the right to lawyers

by States makes it easier to
reinterpret the Constitution.

I see that my time is almost
up. So, I'll be succinct.

I believe that this case
dramatically illustrates

that you cannot have due
process without a lawyer.

Under our justice system,

how can our civilised nation claim
that there is a fair trial,

without a lawyer to
accuse, doing everything

he can, within the
limits of decency,

and a lawyer to
defend, doing their

utmost, within the same limits?

And from this conflict,
the truth will emerge.

I think there is a
tendency to forget

what happens to these poor people,

miserable and
destitute, people who

live like that until they die...

Sometimes, in this
Court, there is a

tendency to forget what
goes on down there.

I remembered Clarence Earl
the other night, examining

another case of someone
who was prosecuted

for trying to bribe a jury.

The first thing this
person imagined

was that he needed a lawyer.

He, who was one of the greatest
criminal lawyers in this country.

But, Mr Fortas, what are the
limits of what you are asking for?

At what stage of a criminal case
should a lawyer be provided?

And what kind of cases?

Only in this case?

No, sir, not in this case. But
I will give my opinion...

Attorney must be
offered at least from

the first sentence
of the prisoner,

also in your trial and appeal.

And that right should be
extended to all defendants.

Even for traffic violations?

Even in traffic
crimes... I know it

sounds strange, but it would work.

Only an exceptional
situation would prevent it.

And it would be very easy
to tell him, Yes, sir,

come through that door, at
the end of the corridor

is the office of the public
defender, he will be received.

Thank you, Mr President.

Doctor Jacob.

Mr President. May I
please the Court.

Clarence Earl Gideon
had a fair trial.

The lawsuit shows that he took an
active part in his own defence,

and he had a great
deal of skill and

ease in interrogating witnesses.

Its previous record of 4 criminal
arrests also indicates that

a criminal case was not
entirely foreign to him.

Judge Mc Claric, who tried
the case, said, and I quote,

that in his opinion, quotes,
Gideon showed mental

capacity and experience in
court in previous trials

to properly conduct your defence.

He acted just as
most lawyers would

have done in conducting this case.

I close the quotes.

We were asked to debate today

whether the decision
of this Court,

in Betts versus Brady, it
must be revoked or modified.

We maintain that it should
not, for several reasons.

First, there is no historical
basis for requiring

states to automatically appoint
a lawyer in all cases.

Second, the criterion
in Betts v. Brady

provides a clear and
consistent pattern

to determine when a
lawyer is entitled.

There are special circumstances
that are not present

in the case, such as an
illiterate or young prisoner.

How do you know that? What are
the special circumstances?

Every time this Court
decides a case, we

are aware of another
special circumstance.

Not long ago, in 4
cases, I believe,

we overruled your
State's decisions

where the accused were
not entitled to a

lawyer due to special
circumstances...

We prefer to check
case by case. It may

not be very accurate.
But we prefer,

This is because it gives
the State freedom to

dictate its own laws in
criminal proceedings.

This Court has never established

permanent rules on the
right to counsel.

And the Scarborough case?
Does it not establish a

rule in which lawyers are
required in capital cases?

It was decided that way,
based on circumstances.

Perhaps. But subsequent
cases have made it clear

that there is a permanent
rule for capital cases.

Your argument that we
heard does not face that.

What historical precedents
did you find for the

distinction between capital
and non-capital cases?

Excellency, I don't remember any.

Me neither.

That's why I asked.

There is a practical
distinction between capital

and non-capital cases, if
you want to draw a line.

Everyone is afraid of
being put to death.

Perhaps they are afraid to spend
years in the Penitentiary too...

I would like to quote one
of our basic theses.

Recognising the presence
of special circumstances,

this Court may order the
State to appoint lawyers.

However, imposing an
inflexible rule that every

accused is entitled to
a lawyer in all cases,

we think that this Court
would be meddling

in an area historically
reserved for States.

It would stifle the
experimentation of the State.

For example, a state
can eliminate both

the prosecutor and the
defence attorney,

and leave the entire
judgement to the judge...

Don't go too far now...

Listen. Gideon is not
a lawyer. But you say

that he is capable of
representing himself.

Do you also think
he would be allowed

to represent other defendants?

If any accused asks, I am sure
the judge will not object.

But the Bar Association maybe...

I hope that this Court
will consider the

consequences of the repeal
of Betts v. Brady...

serious consequences, in my view.

The new doctrine of granting a
lawyer every time you are asked

would necessarily be extended
to the most trivial cases,

creating a tremendous
burden for the taxpayer.

What would happen next?

Indigents would also be demanding
other free services afterwards...

psychiatrists, technical expertise
assistants and things like that...

Strictly speaking, this Court
would be demanding that the

State adopt the socialism or
social assistance program...

And please consider this too:

of 7,800 convicted now
in Florida prisons,

more than 5,000 were
tried without a lawyer,

and perhaps they will be released,

if this Court annuls
Betts v. Brady.

If this Court revokes that
precedent, we implore you

to find a way, a way of not
making it retroactive.

We have been following
Betts in good faith...

And are some of those 5,000
Florida prisoners illiterate?

Excellency, I have no
way of knowing this...

No, but what do you think?

Yeah, I don't know, but I suppose
some of them are illiterate.

This Court established
that an illiterate

defendant is entitled to a lawyer.

Even under Betts v.
Brady, illiteracy

is a special circumstance.

Any illiterate, within
the 5,000 prisoners,

was stripped of his
constitutional rights.

Doctor Fortas, would you like
to say something in reply?

Mr President, in 1942, when
Betts v. Brady was decided,

this country was at war
with Hitler's Germany.

Benjamin V. Cohen,
the famous New Deal

lawyer, and Lee M.
Griswold were professors

and then deans from
Harvard Law School,

Both referred to this when
they sent this letter to the

New York Times, criticising
the Betts v. Brady. I quote:

"The decision at Betts
v. Brady arrives

at a singularly
inopportune moment.

Men are struggling around the
world to free themselves

from fear of political trials
and concentration camps.

Through this struggle,
men have the hope

that the bill of
rights will emerge,

which will guarantee everyone
certain fundamental rights.

Most American lawyers
and lay people,

before the decision
in Betts v. Brady,

would have thought that
the accused's right

to counsel in a serious
criminal case,

it was arguably a part of
our own Bill of Rights.

For in the free world,
no man should be

sentenced to criminal
servitude for years,

without having the right
to a lawyer to defend him.

The right to a lawyer, for both
the poor and the rich man,

it is an indispensable
safeguard of freedom

and justice according to the law."

Dim Pound said the
law must be stable;

however, it should
not be paralysed.

I think Betts v. Brady was a
mistake when it was decided.

I think time has made that clear.

And now that time has made
the right rule possible, the

civilised rule, the rule of
American constitutionalism,

the rule of due
process of the law,

must be established by this Court.

Clarence... a call
for you, Mr Fortas.

In my office.

You can complete the call now.

Doctor Fortas?
Clarence Earl Gideon.

Oh, doctor...

It's just wonderful...

ah... my congratulations
to you, doctor...

you... you are a very
brilliant man...

Can you tell me what the vote was?

Ah... it makes me feel
really, really good...

Doctor Fortas, I was told
that I will be tried again...

but I don't understand...
wouldn't it be a double risk?

I have the impression that yes:
two trials for the same offence.

Ah... I know. Maybe
I understand better

after I receive
your letter, but...

I still don't think it's fair.

Ah, another thing,
sir. Can I ask you

What will happen to the others
here, who didn't have a lawyer?

Yeah, I think I understand... It
depends on the circumstances...

Ah, can I ask you about
this friend of mine?

He's been here for 23 years...

there was only one witness against
him, and that witness is dead now.

Another thing: he doesn't
know how to read.

Yeah... doctor, I'm
really grateful...

I hope to meet you someday...

I thank you so much... thanks.

You're going out... That's
what my lawyer said.

I'm on trial again.

I don't know why... isn't it a
double risk? I don't know why.

I must tell you, I
never imagined that

there was a single
possible chance.

What was the vote?

Nine to zero... unanimous.

How extraordinary. Did he say what
will happen to the other boys?

He said it's too early to say...

Some will be tried again,
like me, and with a lawyer,

and others may come out like
Harles... it depends...

At least no one will
ever go to trial in this

country without a lawyer.
That's what he said.

Mister Gideon, I'm Tobias Simon...

and this is Wim Block, a very
experienced criminal lawyer.

I'm from the American
Civil Liberties

Union and I want to
congratulate you.

His determination and courage are
an inspiration to all of us.

Well then, Abe Fortas wrote
to me saying that you expect

the Union to provide you with
a lawyer for your retrial.

There can be no retrial. I will
never have to submit to it again.

The 5th Amendment
to the Constitution

of the United States
of America says...

that no person will
be twice subjected to

endangering life or freedom,
for the same offence.

It's a double risk.

Mr Gideon... The retrial
made to a prisoner

as a result of the trial
of his own appeal

it is not considered a doubled
risk under American law.

I don't need a lawyer to
tell me what my rights

are. Where do you intend
to make the new trial?

In Panama City...

Ah... ah... not that.
I cannot be judged in

that city. I will be
condemned again, again.

Mr Block and I will
do everything we can

to make sure that it
doesn't happen again.

No sir.

And with the same judge?

Probably.

And do you think it
would be a fair trial?

I'm sorry. I believe that we
have no choice in this matter.

I notice that Mr Tobias Simon
has signed some applications

and is presenting himself
as a defence attorney.

No he's not.

Your Honour, can we get closer?

Yes, they can.

I did not authorise Mr Simon
to sign anything for me.

I can sign it myself. I don't
want him to represent me.

Do you want another
lawyer to represent you?

No, I am not prepared
for the trial.

But, and what do you want?

I want to file an appeal to
withdraw my case from this court.

I cannot have a fair
trial in this court.

The same Court, the same judge,
the same people, and everything...

I cannot get a fair trial here.

Excuse me, Your Honour.

Your Honour, of course,
Mr Block and I don't want

to represent Mr Gideon
if he doesn't want to...

I can speak perfectly for myself.

I make my own claims. I don't want
anyone to claim anything for me.

Don't you want Mr Block and
Mr Simon to represent you?

I don't want them.

Mr Block and Mr Simon
are excused. Thanks.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Mr Gideon, under no
circumstances do I

want you to plead
your own case again.

Do you have the money to hire
a lawyer of your choice?

Do not.

But do you know a local lawyer...
someone you want to represent you?

Yes, Fred Turner.

Record in the file: I will
appoint Mr Fred Turner

to represent this accused,
Clarence Earl Gideon.

Your Honour,

because of Mr Gideon's victory
in the Supreme Court,

as you know, the State
of Florida just

passed the public
defender's law...

I do not want it.

Okay, well, we'll let Mr
Fred handle this himself.

Mr Gideon will now
contact Mr Turner so

that he can submit any
petition he wishes.

I intend to petition myself.
If it is a question of sending

me back to the Penitentiary,
I want to act in my own way.

A petition.

A retrial in the case of accused
Gideon is inappropriate because

one, the 5th Amendment to the
United States Constitution

expressly forbids a man to be
tried twice for the same crime;

and two, the State of Florida
is... two years old...

limitation to prosecute
a crime, and the crime

here was committed more
than three years ago.

I will give my decision
at a later date.

Mr Gideon, awaiting
trial, I will set you

free if I can pay a
thousand dollar bail.

I can not afford.

The trial is scheduled for a month
from now... August 19, 1963.

Hi, Clarence. How are
you doing today?

I see that the glasses
have been returned

to you, right? It's
great, really great...

and you look great in a
suit, you know that?

Look, you don't have to worry,
I have everything ready.

I heard about everything
you've done. And I

wanted to come here
just to cheer you up.

It's very kind of you.
This time, I have a lawyer

I kept working,
asking questions and

talking to people,
finding out the truth.

Very well... please...

God protect the United
States of America, the

State of Florida and
its honourable Court.

God help us to do
impartial justice.

Please have a seat.

The case of the State of Florida
versus Clarence Earl Gideon.

Is the state ready for trial?

There, Your Honour.

Is the defence ready?

Ready, Your Honour.

Ready, Your Honour.

Mr Gideon, you filed
a petition, claiming

that this judgement
represents a double risk

and that a retrial
is also prohibited

by statute of limitations
in the State.

A retrial resulting from
the provision of the

prisoner's own appeal
is not a double risk

and the statute of
limitations does not

apply when the appeal
causes a retrial.

Petition denied.

You can examine the
jurors, Mr Harris.

Do any of you have any
prejudice against the accused

that might prevent you
from doing your duty?

They are satisfactory,
Your Honour.

Your Honour, I would like to
refuse Mr Laureen and Mr Polak.

Laureen doesn't like anything, no

alcohol, and Polak
likes to condemn.

The jury is satisfactory,
Your Honour.

Satisfactory, Your Honour.

You can call your first witness.

Lester Wade.

Lester Wade.

Raise your right hand. Do you
swear to tell the truth, the

whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, with God's help?

- I swear.
- Sit down.

Mr Wade, where were you at
5:30 am on June 3, 1961?

Across from Bay Harbour Poolroom.

Who or what did you see?

I saw Clarence Earl Gideon
inside the poolroom.

What else did you see?

I saw him leave with a bottle
of wine and take a taxi.

Then I went back to the poolroom
and saw that it was broken into.

The destroyed
cigarette machine and

the coin box on the
empty pool table.

Did you notice anything
interesting when Mr Gideon left?

Yes, sir. He had a full pocket.

The witness is yours.

Mr Wade.

What were you doing near
poolroom at 5:30 in the morning?

I was returning from a
dance in Apalachicola.

And how did you get back?

By car, with friends...

Ah yes...

What are their names?

Ah, I don't remember now...

Don't you remember any more names?

No, not at the moment.

Okay, so can you tell me
what that car was like?

Yes, it was an old Chevrolet.

And these friends of yours...

how did they leave you
two blocks from home,

when they had already
covered 100 kilometres?

Wow... I don't know that... you
know, I think I wasn't with...

What?

I intended to stay there, until
the poolroom open, around 7 am...

And you all drank a little
that night, didn't you?

A beer or two...

Where, huh?

In Apalachicola...

But it is strange,
in Apalachicola the

bars are closed after midnight...

When you and your friends
returned at 5:30,

couldn't you still
be a little thirsty?

Did you get into that
Bay Harbour Poolroom?

No sir.

Didn't you leave with
six cases of beer?

No sir.

You stayed there a long time by
the poolroom, didn't you, Lester?

A little...

There are always a
lot of advertising

posters on the glass, don't you?

How could you look and see
someone with all those posters?

But it turns out that I saw...

And the glass part
is very high, that

is, it is too high
to see through it...

However, you did not call the

police... neither
then nor after...

It is true...

Have you never been
convicted of a crime, Wade?

No sir.

Ah... ah... doomed, no. I stole a
car once and... I had a probation.

Now... wait a minute... listen...

at the first trial, when
Mr Gideon asked him

if he had already been
convicted of a crime,

you answered "no
sir, I never was".

It is a false answer,
testifying against Wade's

character and his
credibility as a witness.

It is not necessarily
false testimony.

And also.

No, the allegation of guilt is
not the same as being convicted.

It's exactly the same.

No.

Enough discussion.
Both reached the goal.

Mr Wade. Did you ever deny that
you were guilty of a crime?

Yes, sir.

When and where did you deny the
existence of your criminal record?

It was here, at his last trial.

That's it.

Was Clarence Earl Gideon
allowed to play poolroom

in the early morning
hours of June 3, 1961?

Do not.

The witness is yours.

Have others run your
poolroom from time to time?

On occasion.

And did Mr Gideon work for you?

It was never on the sheet.

But sometimes I did, didn't I?

Well, sometimes...

The dollar and a half
that Mr Gideon paid him

to take him to the city,
he paid exactly how?

Six coins.

And did he recommend
anything to you, to answer

if someone asked if he
had seen you that night?

If anyone asked about
him, I hadn't seen him.

The witness is yours.

Mr Dime. When Mr
Gideon got into his

taxi, what was his
state of sobriety?

What is it?

Oh... Were you drunk or sober?

He was sober.

Did he have any wine?

No sir.

Any beer?

No sir.

Any soda?

No sir.

Were your pockets full?

No sir.

Now we just heard what Mr
Gideon said. If anyone

asked about him, he
hadn't seen him. Right?

Yes, sir.

Now tell me. Has Mr Gideon
ever taken your taxi before?

Yes, sir.

In those other times, he
didn't say the same sentence:

"If someone asks for me,
you haven't seen me"?

Yes, sir.

He never told you why?

Yes, sir.

Then tell the Court what he
said on those occasions.

Well, Mr Gideon had
marital problems.

Problem with the woman,
from time to time.

Well, and who among
us doesn't, huh?

And what he said earlier
was that he didn't

want anyone to know about
his private affairs.

And that is why I did not want
you to say that I had seen you?

Yes, sir.

Thanks. That's it.

You can come down,
Mr Parks. Thanks.

We called Clarence Earl
Gideon to testify.

Put your left hand on the bible.

Raise your right hand. Do you
swear to tell the truth,

just the truth and nothing but
the truth, with God's help?

I swear.

Sit down.

Lord Gideon.

On the morning of
June 3, 1961, did

you break into Bay
Harbour Poolroom?

No sir.

For what purpose did you call
a taxi to go to the city?

To have a drink. If I
had broken into the

bar, I wouldn't have
done that, would I?

Where did you get the
money you were taking?

Playing.

Ah.

What kind of game
do you play, huh?

Usually gambling and poker.

What kind of bet did you make?

Little, because I'm in trouble.

Never played with Lester Wade?

Of course. I played with
all the guys, you can ask.

Did you bring any wine?

I don't drink wine.

Any beer?

Do not.

Any soda?

Do not.

Ah... one more question...
Mr Stafford says that,

from time to time, he
directed poolroom at him.

It is true?

Yes, I did that.

How did you get there
for that purpose?

I had a copy of the
key for that purpose.

What about the charge of breaking
into Bay Harbour Poolroom?

I am innocent. I know
nothing about it.

You had more than $25 in coins the

morning you were
arrested, Mr Gideon...

Why did you have all
that money... in coins?

I've had over $100 in
coins in my pocket.

Why?

Have you ever played a poker game?

Would you carry 100
dollars in coins

in your pockets for several days?

Yes, sir.

I'm sorry to say that,
but I would never

leave you in the Bay
Harbour Hotel room.

Do you already have a
conviction for a crime?

Already, five times,
including this one.

Ah, ah...

Lester Wade...

Lester Wade. This parole guy was
drinking beer at the ball...

Then he comes back, maybe thirsty,
walks over to the poolroom,

and waits outside, an hour and a
half, waiting for it to open...

He could walk 2 blocks
home, sleep 90 minutes...

Or drink a beer in your fridge...

But not...

He preferred to stand
there on that corner,

walking back and forth
for 90 minutes,

looking through the glass...
and still thirsty...

And now he says, looking
through the glass,

he claims he saw
Clarence Earl Gideon.

Only he does a very
peculiar thing...

He doesn't call the police, he
doesn't notify the owner...

he just walks to the corner
and then comes back...

Why?

I know why... And you too...

No more midnight
beer in Apalachicola

and Lester Wade and his
friends are still thirsty...

So, what happened to
beer, wine and soda?

I will tell you what happened.

They left it in
that old Chevrolet.

Now, why was Wade around
the corner, pacing?

I answer them.

He was watching.

What about Gideon?

He leaves his hotel, goes to the
phone booth and calls a taxi.

Take the taxi, which
takes you to the city.

Wade, who is on guard, sees him...

and then, when the police show up,

this is the perfect
answer for Wade...

He accuses Gideon.

25 dollars, all in change.

It's a lot to carry
in your pocket.

But Mr Gideon had
$100 exchanged in

his pockets. Do you believe that?

Do you believe in this
whole story, sir?

Lester Wade is not on trial.

There is no evidence of Wade's
animosity towards Gideon.

There is no proof
that Wade and his

friends took the beer and wine.

They must be based on evidence
from the process, not speculation.

They must rely on the facts

not what a lawyer like Mr Turner
would like you to believe.

Deliver the verdict
to the officer.

Stand up the accused.

Clarence Earl Gideon was found
not guilty by the jury.

Session is closed.

What are you going to do now?

The first thing, trying
to locate my children.

And... well, one thing...

I think I would like to go
back to poolroom tonight.

Ah... ah... ah...

Could someone lend
me a few dollars?

Thank you, Mrs Curtis.

Gideon, do you think you've
accomplished anything?

Oh, I did.

On November 1, 1963,

Attorney General Robert
F. Kennedy said:

if an obscure Florida convict
named Clarence Earl Gideon,

in prison, had not sat
down with a pencil and

paper to write a letter
to the Supreme Court

and if the Supreme
Court hadn't taken

the trouble to examine the merits

of this rude petition,
among the mountain of

correspondence that you
must receive daily,

our American law
machine would have

continued to function undisturbed.

But Gideon wrote that letter.

The Court examined your case.

He was tried again, with the help
of a competent defence lawyer.

Found innocent and released from

prison after two
years of punishment

for a crime you didn't commit...

and the entire course of American
legal history has been changed.