tv Landmark Cases Supreme Court Landmark Case Gideon v. Wainwright CSPAN July 23, 2020 8:00pm-9:34pm EDT
coverage, watch anytime on demand it c-span.org or listen on a go. look at the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on american history tv our series of landmark cases produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, we explore the issues, people in places involved in some of the nation's most significant supreme courses. a persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states please give their attention. landmark cases c-span special history series produced in partner with the national constitution center. exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> mr. chief justice make please please the court. very often some of our most famous decisions.
are ones that the court made very unpopular decisions. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stuck together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to landmark cases. tonight's case is gideon versus wayne. wreck 55 years ago this month, the supreme court ruled that the right to counsel was so fundamental to our dove governmental system. that states must provide lawyers for defendants who cannot afford. one the hero of tonight's story is a bit of an unlikely. one clarence gideon was adrift her from florida was accused of breaking a pool. as we begin tonight, we're gonna go to some historic video. you see the real mr. gideon and the florida judge who sentenced to jail. they reenacted the case for cbs news documentary in 1965. let's watch >> the next case on
the docket is the state of florida versus clarence earl gideon. what says the state are you ready for trial? >> the state is ready or honor >> i'm not ready your honor. you plead the guilt >> why aren't you ready? . i have no cancel >> i have no cancel. >> you know the years was set for trial today? . >> yes there are no set for trial today. >> why did you not then secure counsel then we go to trial? >> your honor i request this court to represent me in this trial. >> mister, gideon i and cannot appoint counsel to represent in this case. under the state of law in the state of florida, only the time the court can appoint counsel as when that person is charged with a capital offense. i'm sorry but i will have to deny a request.
>> the united states supreme cart says i am entitled to be represented by counsel. >> let me introduce you to two guests who are at our table today. they return from season one of lamar cases. former solicitor general under president george w. bush 2004 2008. now a lawyer in private practice. he has the distinction of arguing more cases before the supreme car 85 times. thanks for being with us. like akhil amar glad to have you back. he's a law professor at yale and visiting law professor at the university pennsylvania. his latest book is called the constitution today timeless lessons for the issues of our era. professor amar. was mr. gideon at that time he said that correct? did the constitution agree he no right to council. >> he said the supreme court
had said it and the supreme court had not said it. it would say about we'll talk about this evening. what the supreme court had said before was that federal defendants being prosecuted for federal crimes in federal court could have appointed counsel. this case is called johnson versus's herbs in 1938. the court and never said that was quite true for non capital cases non death penalty cases being tried in every state. court >> mr. gideon had that notion because of the sixth amendment to the constitution. the accused shell of. shall have the assistance of trial for his defense. paul climate he also turned the 14th amendment. he was really quite a student of the constitution. says no state shall make or force any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. nor did i to any person within its evil protection of the law. >> the question that the supreme court would decide. mr. gideon was quite right to focus on the due process of the laws. in addition to the sixth amendment one problem that he had was at the sixth amendment by its terms applies only to the federal government. not the state government. but the 14th amendment and its due proof of process clause directly appears to the states. that's why he was quite right to point to the due process clause. the florida had to give him a lawyer as opposed to the federal government. >> there's criticism from somebody on facebook tonight.
she making a liberal case tonight. is there something about this case tonight? that liberals and conservatives can both find to like tonight? >> i don't think of gideon as being a left right case. as you say, i think there are things for everybody about this case. particularly from a conservative, when somebody is facing the awesome power of the government and the awesome power of the government is about to take their life away or the liberty, to be able to have the assistance of counsel and make that guarantee real, i think it's something that conservatives and liberals would values a cherished. right akhil amar? >> so since the era of court. it's been in my entire lifetime the democratic and pointy's have not been a majority in court since 1970, so it's been a burger cone iraq was, corner
roberts court. chief chief justice is appointed by republican, republican party members of having done the appointees. the war in court but gideon is bedrock across the board. other things aren't the exclusionary rule for example which applied to the states conservatives do not like that. i might be with them on that. we all believe, left right and center, there's a bedrock right to have a lawyer. if you don't have a lawyer, you can't defend anything. even from a conservative point of view, if you're going to put people in president prison because he believed in law in order, you want to put the people who actually did it in prison. that legitimize is the whole system that you actually do have lawyers who can put the
government to its and prove that these folks are guilty something then to hire a lawyer. >> think one of the lawyers justices clear this is not a left right issue. >> this is a case of some interesting and big characters. we're gonna tell you about them as we wade into our store. first is clarence earl getting himself. the tech new york times reporter wrote a best-selling book about this case at the time called gideon's trumpet, later made into a movie. here is how he describes earl gideon. getting was a 51 year old white man who had been in and out of prison similar most of his life. it served time for four previous felonies and he bore the physical marks of a destitute life. wrinkles prima which surely age face, a frail body, quite.
pale he had never been a professional criminal, or a man of violence. he could just not seem to settle down to work so he had made his way by gambling and occasional fast. even a man who knew, and even a man who arrested him considered gideon a perfectly harmless human being, somewhat likable but one tossed aside by life. >> anthony lewis really can write and i think that's a very nice portrait. we're gonna talk a lot about the man and the case. truth be told, from a certain point of view, if guinea hadn't been the vehicle or the instrument for the supreme court ruling, i do believe that some other litigant would have been because there are larger structural forces at play the development of the united states state supreme court case law. this the court was looking for a case like this one.
that's the other thing i would emphasize. >> we're going to hear about earl warren, chief justice of the united states. tell me briefly who he was. >> chief justice warren is an incredibly large figure in the supreme court history. he's the embodiment of the war in court. he's also the embodiment of one level of what the chief justice should look like. he looked like a judge should look, he had a very personal presence, he can from california so we had an experience career before a came to the supreme court. what is probably best known for and leaving the war in court and the warns revolution in criminal justice revolution. >> he's a republican. he ran for the vice presidency of the united states on the republican party ticket in 1948. if dewy had defeated treene and earl warren would be in the
republican vice president. -- republican president dwight eisenhower. this is a liberal liberal case. the other justice that i would mention who's gonna play a very big role in our conversation is hugo black. the right majority opinion in the gideon case. earl warren. hugo black was somebody who had been a lawyer in private practice and had defended all sorts of people from indigenous, poor people to other people. >> we're gonna hear also. abe for this >> aid force comes into this not as a supreme court justice he would later become one. after that a failed nominee for the chief justice shipped. here it's eight forest a lawyer. time that he's appointed to
represent gideon he's at the top of the legal brazil profession. he's one of the great washington fixtures and great lawyers of the time. he ends up that clarence getting ends up having no lawyer to having one of the greatest lawyers in the united states. >> across from him was the name of bruce jacob. >> only what i'm read in his book. i think we're gonna see more from in the course of the evening. >> he argued to courses before the supreme court and really history about both of them. learn about that later. and then the other namesake. louis wayne right. he really has a very small role to play in a split story. how are those names assigned to. cases >> there are assigned to cases in the first instance based on which party is sued in the action. the reason that this wayne right as opposed to the state of florida is this gets to the
state and gets two and a hideous decision as. when you file a petition for writ of heaviest corpus, you sue your jailer. that's why the head of the florida prison system was the defendant. he really is a small player in this drama, because when the cases first file in the supreme court there's a different head of the agency and it's just an official title. they just swapping out one after another. wayne writes the one that stays in the caption in the case we are. no >> little bit of history there. we love to have your participation in this program. in about ten minutes will be going to your phone calls from across the country. -- you can also tweet us use the hashtag landmark twice is. or you can go to cease barr
spends facebook page and you see the page there. we're gonna go back to some video or gonna take a look at how clarence gideon ended up facing criminal charges in panama city, florida. >> and was on saturday i believe when i was arrested. i was arranged basically on monday morning. it gave me a preliminary trial the next day on tuesday. that was the first time that i found out actual direct evidence. >> this is the file folder for the gideon case. we keep that separate from all our case files now because of all the interest we have now in the case. and the historic value of it. the original case file. some of that since it is getting so old it's really hard to read. this is the charging document from the state's attorney's
office. from 1961 when he was charged with breaking and entering in the bar. will brief summary. they're saying that mr. gideon did in fact break into the poolroom and he stole money or property. this one is actually the verdict sheet miss. the gideon fining mr. gilding guilty sits on september 7th 1961 for a term of five years. >> even though panama city was on the losing side of this case, they really become part of history. it's really interesting and fun to see how that city in florida has preserved all of the papers for this case and has a bit of a museum that preserves their place in history. explain why george judge robert mercury that we saw earlier -- you actually see he is trying to help clarence gideon along.
but the law only allows him to go so far. what florida law allowed at that point, and was florida unique and not having a signed a defendant? >> florida law at the time only allowed for the appointment -- principally capital cases or death penalty cases. they were not alone at that time and not providing council to defendants but they were in the minority at that point. the trend of history was clearly going against them. i'm not sure about the precise number about -- but i think you are down to about a dozen jurisdictions that did not provide counsel and all cases to poor defendants. >> it was even more dramatic than that. one, the judges trying to help gideon out a little bit. it is very difficult to be a coach and the empire umpire.
some folks who say gee, the constitution is and say appointed counsel -- it is true, and at the founding actually of the framers only provided for council in death penalty cases, but in other cases the judge was actually supposed to help the defendant, but as time went on, it became clear that you cannot play these two roles. one argument for the rightness of the case is just, judges cannot be effectively coaches and umpires. second argument is as pulse it, the trend of history had very strongly move in that direction at the time of the gideon case, only five states or not giving appointed counsel in a felony cases. even among those 5 pm, and florida was one of those five, but even then, in some of the big cities, they appointed counsel was being offered. always in capital cases.
with the judge also said is, i cannot do it. no, he was not required to do -- but even judges who are not required to do it often what using to do it. from a right perspective, here is an amazing fact about the case. 25 states actually weigh in, on one side of the other. 22 of them, let by the attorney general of minnesota -- 22 side with gideon. only two join with florida saying that we should not be forced to do this. >> they have any choice but to uphold the commission based on the laws of the state? >> based on the laws of the state, statutory laws of the state, i don't think they really have much choice. i think they probably would've been open to them to decide right under the state constitution, but i don't think
there was much of an appetite for that. unlike the supreme court, the florida supreme court didn't pick clarence gideon's case as a vehicle to make a change in the law, so from the perspective of the florida supreme court, it was just another case. just another prisoner with really, not about a claim and their eyes. i think when you get to the way the supreme court of the united states treats this petition, it is night and day compared to the florida supreme court just sees this is another hopeless petition. >> another supreme court at the time we're recognizing -- even when the state constitution was not entirely clear, even when state statutes and provide for it, as a matter of administration of justice, courts in other states, state courts were saying, we are in charge of the justice system in our state, and we are going to
improvise and some ways because even of the united states supreme court has not yet required us to do so, nick about it this way, if the supreme court ever does require us to do this, are we going to have to go back and redo all these convictions, and for our own purposes, do we ever want to be convicting people who might be -- just because they don't have good lawyers? the state supreme courts were more forward leaning on the florida supreme court. >> you mention in an earlier case, would you also talk about betts v. brady which was the last time before this case to the supreme court had ruled on the right to counsel. >> i mentioned you'd or black who was an interesting character. a southerner, a former senator from alabama. he is -- he does not come from a fancy family background. he's a hardworking alabama
person. he does not go to three years of law school but he pulls himself by his own boot strap and gets himself elected to the senate. he is franklin roosevelt's first appointee in the united states supreme court after roosevelts election in 1936. he writes in 1938, maybe his first big opinion, seeing the sixth amendment requires that the federal government give appointed counsel to a federal defendant and then in this next case in betts v. brady four years later, the question is, what about the states and hugo black is in dissent in that case. he thinks that the bill of rights that was originally applied only against the federal government should also apply against the state. the famous degree is called the corporation of the bill of rights. in hugo black's view it is incorporated against the states -- he thinks the 14th amendment --
applies all these rights. speech, press, counsel, due process, double jeopardy -- all these rights apply against states. the first case where he says it is in the scent isn't betts v. brady, and then later on, in 1963, he finally has the chance to take that dissent and turned it into a majority. >> clarence gideon goes to jail. he is sentenced to five years for what seems to us like a pretty smalls crime. it took some wine. it took some beer. if he was in fact guilty, in which he says he was not. what was missing with some change from the jukebox and from the cigarette machine, and sentenced to five years. we said this was a man with an eight great education, but he had been studying the constitution and school, and what did he do when he got to jail? >> when he got to jail, he
started the process of becoming a pretty good jailhouse lawyer. one of the things that he did not, and the professor made the point earlier, and in some respects, it is a little bit and accident of history that clarence gideon is the person who gave us this constitutional right. if the supreme court had been ready at the time of betts v. brady, we would be talking about smith that's as the person who brought us this constitution. it gets lucky in a sense, but he was also smart. if he had not preserved his request for right to counsel, his case might not have been the vehicle, and if he had not understood if he had the right to file -- and had a right to take his case all the way to the supreme court, and we would not have gideon against rain white. we might still have the right to counsel in a different case, they would not be getting.
>> clarence gideon wrote a letter to the supreme court, and it was one of many appeals that the court received every year. we are seeing what it looks like. it is handwritten with pencil. we will listen to arthur goldberg, the justice of supreme court about how the justices deal with these kinds of petitions when they get them at the court. let's listen. >> what happened when the court received a gideon letter? >> a gideon letter was written to us from a prisoner any penitentiary. state or federal. he claims that mr. gideon did a violation of the fundamental constitutional right. we regard that letter to be an appeal. it may not be called an appeal by the prisoner, but we deem it to be an appeal. that letter is circulated as gideon's letter was circulated for all of the justices. when mr. gideon's letter was received, it was put out in conference -- we consider on fridays when we go into conference.
it was one of the first cases that i had an opportunity to consider after my point to the court. when it came around, we talked about at length. as much length as we would about any case. we decided that perhaps we ought to consider again with the constitutional requirements of right of council really meant in a country that believed inequality. >> luck paul clementa, does the court still handle prisoners appeals? >> it's still handers president prisoner appeals in a very similar way. i think that the gideon case is one that for a lot parts stands out as the hand written nature of the petition, and maybe is -- when you are a law clerk and looking at petitions, particularly prisoners petitions, the vast majority of them are freeland, but i think
the very fact that gideon's case was granted as this landmark is that sort of little voice for a lot of the law clerks that says, i have to take this really seriously, because buried in here, there may be a very important claim. >> and it was buried in the sense that gideon sometimes is very crisp and clear. at other times in what he wrote, it is meandering. it is not so clear. but let me tell you -- and if the law clerks are reading, if they don't give a, if they are looking for the possible needle in a haystack, this is the essence of what gideon wrote. the question is very simple. this is a quote. the question is very simple i requested the court to appoint me an attorney, and the court refused. it is very simple. i requested the court to appoint me attorney. the court refused. >> we're going to learn about a little bit more about the supreme court that this case was heard by.
first, will take some phone calls. josh in iowa. you are on the air. >> good evening, you guys. my question is, how much of justice black's original or textural is and how to do with the way he worded his majority opinion and gideon? east >> who hugo black believed in the text of the constitution. he was a liberal, but before there was at me's, before there was robert bork -- a constitutional law, or scalia, or clarence thomas, all of whom say that they are textualists and originalist. the original original list of the -- he always copied a copy of the constitution. he comes from the bible belt a fundamentalist part of the country where they take their sacred taxed seriously and in a proud instant tradition
everything their bible. a critic would say, g, you are stretching things because the right of council at the founding in the right everything council, counsel for someone who could afford it. it is what a critic would say. one responses, as i said, yes, but even if you could not afford an attorney, the judge at the founding was supposed to actually help you defend yourself, but overtime it became clear that you could not be an umpire and a coach at the same time. >> i would say, i don't think gideon is just this black most textual or originalist opinion. it is an opinion that is pretty concise. it really relies on the logical extension of the courts other cases. for instance, the johnson case
that you referenced about giving the right to council and the federal system >> here is one other thing that the court really relies on. we haven't talked about it. really amazing. the scott sparrow case. that the supreme court in the 1930s had basically said, when you are on your trial for your life -- when it's a deaf case, you are entitled to appointed counsel. part of what happened in betts v. brady, which was after scott sparrow, scott sparrow was a racially charged case out of alabama. oh that's a capital case, and all the other cases -- we have to look at all the facts and circumstances. sometimes you are entitled to a lawyer, if you are -- if it is a difficult legal case, or if you are feebleminded, or if the prosecution has all sorts of resources. we have to look at all the
facts and circumstances. what black does say in this opinion is, that is too complicated. that actually is too uncertain, as long as we are going to be in the business of requiring council when it comes to capital cases, why not just do it across the board? >> a call from peter in elizabeth town, pennsylvania. hello, peter. >> good evening. can you hear me clearly? thank you so much to everyone at c-span, especially our wonderful guests. would you indulge me and give me 30 seconds to say something in defensive c-span? very quickly. this is the second time i have been watching this program. one of my more conservative brethren out there is criticizing c-span. i just want to say c-span is fantastic. if he thinks he spent is biased, sir, you are not watching it enough, because the three channels do a marvelous job of guests and programs --
people on the right, the left front and center, i do not understand how anyone could criticize c-span. expand a little bit on the source of this idea of having a right to counsel when one is on trial because my always been taught i've always been brought up with the notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. just because you don't not know what the lies does not give you any advantage in court or anywhere else for that matter. so why word we get this notion that wants to become a defendant and you have a right to summon the coach of along the borough the metaphor of a coach? i always thought to find that if i'm willing to testify the
whole truth to the best of my knowledge and the judge, if i'm a defendant then the judge can look at the end offense and the court will decide what the correct assumption is. >> thanks for your call. thanks for the kind words what would you say peter? >> i would say peter that the right to have accounts of the right to have a lawyer with you that comes right from the constitution the sixth amendment in the federal system. i think the harder historical argument is to get from the right to have a council if you can afford it, to the right to have the state provide the council for you if you can't afford it. that's the leap i think is less a leap you make in history then a leap you make based on fundamental fairness and the way the system works. i think if you go back to even the first justin roberts opinion in bats that goes through the historical
arguments, there's not a great historical tradition for the framing for the state paying for the lawyer, the government paying for the lawyer. the argument ends up being, look to state itself when they're trying to prosecuted individual, they pay for lawyers and they spend lots of money on it. and people of means, if they argue accused of a crime the first thing they do is go out and get the best possible lawyer they can afford. so is it fair in our system to have somebody who can't afford to pay for council have to face the system where the deck is stacked. the prosecutors are paid lawyers, very very haley train lawyers. anybody who could possibly afford it will go into court and have a lawyer. i think it's a lesson argument about history than an argument about the kind of fundamental fairness that is guaranteed by
the deep process clause. >> and the rules in court or very artificial rules, they are legal estate rules. at the time of the founding, there were maybe six common law crimes. but today the statute books are very big and thick. there are elaborate rules of evidence. suppose you are innocent but you do not know the right way to ask a question. i'm not gonna spoil the ending because we haven't told you what happens in a getting case based on rachel, but suppose for example, you really do have a good defense but you are a lay person and you do not know the rules of evidence. you don't know the rules of procedure, you don't know how to show the jury that actually you maybe didn't do, it the somebody else did. and as paul mentioned, the the folks on the other side the prosecution, this is a very accomplished legal team a raid against you.
they for example get to produce witnesses subpoena witnesses against you. the constitution says to even things up you should be able to compel witnesses in your favor. they can present evidence you can present evidence. they can help pick the jury, you can help pick the jury. but none of that is gonna work without a lawyer because you don't know how to pick a jury, how to subpoena witnesses, how to compel the production of witnesses, how to cross examine within the rules of evidence and all the rest. you need a lawyer for. that >> matt smith asked on twitter. did giving use elaborate to get the knowledge for his letter. the answer is yes. he had to write in pencil and follow the jail rules or all state and federal prisons required to have law libraries or do they buy practice? >> i think many do by practice many are required by their state laws a few. have a jurisdiction to do not provide he would have due
process against. it cede to have access to those resources and you have a lot of litigation that comes out of these prisons. so much so the congress passed a law, the prison litigation reform act, to try to put some limits on. it it is certainly a source of a lot of cases the continued be filed in the courts in the supreme court. >> take three more calls charlene in birmingham alabama. >> i thank you for having me i just wanted to know, i know the in deals with criminal issues, but does the federal government actually allow a court appointed a torn attorney for civil, if the person is indigent? >> that is a good question thank you. and >> in general, not. there are a couple of areas where people have made particularly strong arguments for civil gideon.
that is what you're asking about. for example they're going to take away a child into child custody case. there have been cases in the supreme court whether that's so close to be put in present yourself you deserve a lawyer. if you want to declare bankruptcy and you're so indigent, you're so poor that you can't even file the bankruptcy papers, you have some right to government assistance in order to declare bankruptcy. and paul will know some of the details, but as a general proposition the gideon case applies that criminal defendants basically felony cases has not been fully extended to all traffic or cases or the civil lawsuits, whether you're talking about civil plaintiffs people bringing the lawsuits or people being sued civilly. paul will give some more
details. >> that's basically right john. they're obviously some programs that are available in a variety of jurisdictions to provide legal aid, to provide lawyers in civil cases. but in a sense i think that the current system for the civil system as a little like the criminal system before gideon and that it is a piecemeal approach. you probably have a better chance in certain course cases. certain jurisdictions have better legal aid systems and other jurisdictions. you're much more at the mercy of the particular jurisdiction your involved. in >> in california you are on. >> thank you very much for taking my call and thank you for the show and the c-span over the years wonderful work. first of all i saw something on the news that brown versus board of education had passed away since you're talking navy
cases earlier, i thought that was an interesting footnote. inevitable but regrettable. my question is, in the systems we have legal assistance for criminal cases, i've heard i'm a retired attorney, i've heard people complaining that they simply weren't very good that the public defenders were trying to get the prosecutors and it didn't work as hard as it should have. i don't say this in a general sense. i have no idea because it's all anecdotal. i'm wondering where the system is where the attorneys were appointed and paid by the state as opposed to sort of established law firm if you will that just handles indigent defendants might be a better system or some other system perhaps.
and i thank you >> thanks for the question. is it right to confident counsel >> if if somebody provided by the state doesn't absolutely, abjectly awful job, you might have your constitutional rights violated in that way. but absent that sort of constitutional minimum the reality that the competence of state provided council varies widely. frankly the confidence of privately paid counsel varies pretty widely. the system once it provides us right to a lawyer, there's lots of different ways to try to deliver these legal services in the best possible way and i'm not sure that anybody has a monopoly on the best way to do that. i will say in my experience, i've run across some incredibly
talented public defenders who provide very good legal advice to the clients. >> we have a call from jeff in hickory north carolina then will go back to our story about getting gideon. >> thank you for taking my call. i've always wondered why when the case went first went to the supreme court was getting versus cochrane. then what is decision was handed out who's getting versus wayne right. you had to that earlier thank you for that. in starting this case teaching it to my students, i've always wondered the bets versus brady president required that in special circumstances, such as illiteracy or indulges see the council be appointed. and in the arguments of the getting case it was evident at floored it had wantonly basically ignored the special circumstances. talk to me a little bit about
why that was done so widely when it was obviously against the supreme court precedents. >> that was one of justin's blacks arguments that a supreme court lawyer for getting in that the case by case approach was not working well. there was one absolute rule in a capital case a death penalty case, you got a lawyer. that's how bats and some of the latest cases came to re-discounts burrow case, which i mention out of alabama. after that, the individual facts and circumstances, and you're absolutely right, i think in for cases in florida, the united states supreme court each and every time said on the set of facts here in tied to the lawyer, where the florida supreme court says they are not. so florida's supreme court and the u.s. supreme court
purporting to basically follow the same set of principles but they keep disagreeing. the last time i think the supreme court ever upheld someone who would ask for counsel and did not get it was 1950. so hugo black and aid forces, the lawyer for getting in the supreme court say that the case by case system is not working well, and in fact it's worse for the states. because when we overrule a decision several years after the trial it will have to be retried can he put humpty-dumpty back together again? everything is scattered. let's just have a clean rule from the beginning and cases. there will be a line, serious cases versus traffic cases. we're not gonna have to look at this defendant, who's illiterate, who's underage,
who's feebleminded, whatever. >> so the supreme court agrees to hear the case of getting in the early part of 63 let's look at the nine members of the supreme court who were destined to hear this case. we talked about chief justice earl warren in here the others. john marshall harlan the second, some of our earlier cases were john marshall the first. william brennan and potter stewart. roosevelt appointee hugo black, only been talking about. william oh douglas. truman appointee tom clark and kennedy appointee buyer in white. his nickname wizard. white and he left to be u.s. savannah's ambassador to the united nations in 1965. is there anything else about that makeup of that court that we should know about this it was unanimous decision we should remember. >> there's a lot we can say but the make of this court.
one thing that struck me as compared to the current court is that it's a relatively young core. the average age is a little under 60 years old. you have new members coming on such as justice goldberg indicated in his video earlier this is one of the first cases he is considering coming out of the court replacing justice frankfurter, who was a big believer in federalism and judicial restraint may or may not have been a vote for clarence gideon. the other justices i would just highlight is a second justice harlan was one of the real components on this particular court a giving more respect for the states as opposed to imposing a one size fits all solution. just because we applied in federal contacts we will applied in the. state the >> oral argument was hard heard and january 15th
1963. he was empowered to represent mr. gideon he was still in his jail cell in florida. we will hear next from a forest about why he wanted to take up this. case >> i felt that the time had arrived when the court with a proper case before we would lay down the general rule for all felony cases in the state courts. the every man, the rich, the poor and the poor as well as the rich was in titled to benefit of council when he was defending himself against prosecution by the mighty forces of the state >> we heard from you both that aid forces was a powerhouse lawyer in the federal court system. it was a big deal that the court selected hindu argue the case. why did they do? it >> because they wanted to
make sure that they were hearing the best arguments on both sides. my friend paul has argued more cases before the supreme court than any living person currently in private practice, and if the court doesn't have one side doesn't have a lawyer, the court wants to make sure i get the best argument so they will pick somebody like john manning. the current dean of the harvard law school to make sure they're getting the best argument which is part of the answer. once you winston or understand how good lawyer-ing is then the judges can get it right. so the jury can get it right. we don't want people convicted just because they're poor, we want them convicted because they are guilty we can only really be sure that if we have good lawyers on both sides.
actually, in a way the appointment of fort us is providing the deep logic basically gideon's claim. >> arguing on behalf of the state of florida was attorney bruce jacob. he was just a couple of years out of law school. we actually talk with him. he's in his eighties. he sat down in front of our cameras and talked about the experience. we were gonna listen to him about what it was like to argue the case before the court. >> the day before the case was oregon chief justice warren swarm in an orbit three or four lawyers being sworn in. i remember he's a huge man he leaned out over the banter bench just a few feet away feel like he's right on top of you said welcome to the bar of the supreme court mr. jacob. swarm. ian i admire the chief justice so much, to have somebody like that talk to me.
my name is really something something special. before the arguments and during the argument, it was pretty nerve-racking appearing before the supreme court they. asked me at least 92 questions, most of them were during the first half hour of my argument. so 92 interruptions. quite often they weren't really into interested in the answer. instead they were trying to make points with each other after the arguments. i saw aid for this in the hallway i felt terrible like a dinner really bad job because i was hammered with so many questions. abe said said to me you have a wonderful way before the court which made me feel good because i thought i'd done really poorly, but he made that comment and made me feel better. >> paul claremont i saw you smile a few times as boost jacob talked about his experience. you've been there so many times can you identify with his lung
young lawyer a couple years out of law school is assigned to this enormous case innings worn into the bar. tell me what you are thinking about when he heard him talking about? that >> it's almost ironic here i was thinking that because because by the time we get to the supreme court, the trial court in florida the deck is totally stack against poor clarence gideon. it's almost the exact opposite now here's its lawyer from florida in the prosecutors office, he's getting sworn in the day before his argument. i think i read and anthony lewis is book that the day before was the first time he never seen a supreme court argument and he's right now against a forest essentially handpicked by the court to argue this case with the court knowing even at this point where they were appointing forces that they probably had
five votes to overrule, so it's really a stacked deck against this lawyer who is making his maiden supreme court argument which is incredibly nerve-racking under the best of circumstances and he's facing turf some tough circumstances. i can't help but think that was a really nice thing for a forest to say. >> 91 questions he was the said he was peppered with. zak common for people who are arguing courses before the court? >> as paul will tell you he really is the expert here, we might in recent memory distinguish between like there's a cnbc, pre-scalia and post scalia. before justice scalia in general the bench was a little cooler and quiet. literally from his first day justice scalia actually began to change all of that and now most of the justices lean in a big way. i was told a story the justice
scalia's, and his first day it is now hot bench. paul can confirm this whether or clarify, but the story is told that least on the very first day when justice cleo is on the bench and he's asking questions after question, one of the justices, a very polite louis powell leans over thorough good marshal and says, do you think we he knows we're here. that's the story i've. heard >> you've made the case that the story that the court want to tear the best arguments on both sides. one of your tweets they needed something more than a 20 something junior they wanted to hear the best case. >> that's florida's call with it had all its resources it could've picked anyone some. so maybe it was a bit of a problem for florida. they could've sent a whole team of lawyers if they. what >> can you encapsulate the
arguments made by each side? >> i will try. i'll try with a florida side for disses notice it he's in a position of strength, so he needs to do a couple of things. one thing is he needs to make clear to the court that this is the right case to overrule that's against brady. he's in an odd position here because a supreme court doctrine says that if there are special circumstances, special disability for the defendant, then you are entitled to council, even under the bats rule. so in an odd way for us as to a little bit argue against his own interests. he's saying that gideon is not that special and actually did not do a terrible job. he did the best he could expect a layperson to do. so he has to establish that there aren't special circumstances here, because
otherwise the court does not have a need to overrule betts versus brady. then his main mission is to get the court, all of the justices, comfortable with the idea that they can do this consistent with federalism and consistent with their jurisprudence about how the due process clause in the bill of rights applies to the state. and it's a trick. this is very much the case with the current court in other areas you are not arguing to monolith. you're arguing to justice black and douglas and others, who have a distinct view of how incorporation works. and you are going to justin harlan, who's much more skeptical of applying the federal bill of rights to the states. and you're trying to pull out all of it. once i think the key, and the professor alluded to this earlier, that the key was for decided he would argue that the current doctrine, special
circumstances, the court overruling stay on a case by case basis was worse for federalism. then a nice clean bright line. >> florida's case? >> maybe three words. federalism, presidents and floodgates. so betts versus brady is out of the supreme court precedents, and why shouldn't we just follow it the way that we ordinarily follow precedent? states rights? yes a clean break room but florida could've chosen, if it wanted, just as a matter of a kind of prophylactically to provide everybody a lawyer. they decided not to, and aren't they the best to determine what is in the interest of florida? floodgates. there are a lot of people who are already in prisons right now they did not have lawyers and are you now going to have
to let them all out? or try or attempt to retry them, but many years later witnesses have disappeared, the physical evidence as a evaporated, is that what you want to do? do you want to have 8000 or 10,000 people in florida, i think half of them had been convicted without appointed counsel. that attract that is a practical argument to contest at the court has to consider. >> in addition to the arguments made before the court, it was mentioned earlier the 22 states had filed a brief, friend of the court briefs, in support of gideon and two had submitted briefs supporting the arguments of florida. can you talk about the role of these briefs? >> amicus briefs are generally briefs are filed sometimes by state governments, sometimes by the aclu or other private
groups that are offering the court their own perspectives on the issue? they can be somewhat influential in a lot of cases but this particular dynamic were poor florida, they are trying to argue for states rights and roughly half the states rights and half the states in the union or on the other side of the case. so that brief carried much more weight than an ordinary amicus brief, because it it's a very nixon goes to china kind of amicus brief. a kind of bunch of states arguing that they actually want federal right that forces, than even the ones that already provided it, they could change their mind. but they want to be told that the federal constitution compels them to provide appointed counsel. i have to think that not just the fact there are a couple of states in the brief, but the
fact that there were 22 or 23 i think there were 23. i think new jersey wanted to design. so they're against florida >> it's the final compelling paragraph of justice black's opinion for the court limiting the anarchists briefs. >> phone lines are open we have time for a couple more calls. then we will get to the decision was rendered on march 18th 1963. before we get to some of the text of that decision will hear from chris. >> how are you doing tonight? . >> we're doing just great. >> i have a comment i did not realize the timeframe of this i don't know when the law was passed when the defendant was given the right to cancel. i spent 20 years in the military and one of my soldiers was brought in front of a court martial and i didn't know by talking to the defense attorney
that until the mid eighties as soldiers who were in front of a judge weren't provided actual council in the way of an attorney. military officers in unit were appointed to be their defense counsel. i thought it was an amazing fact that the government gets the prosecutor on their side, who is an actual attorney, then to turn around and say by the way here and are maria officer, an artillery officer, you now have the secondary job of providing the defense for the soldier. my soldier did have council. i thought it was funny that after 20 years after getting versus wayne, write that soldiers joining the military, there was not a draft anymore and still they are not provided 20 years later counsel in that aspect. who somebody who is not a
trained attorney. and also, another choice that a soldier had to make you have a trial by their peers or is it just a judge making the decision? so there is another dynamic into it. and officer and my soldier had to stand in front of a colonel. an officer standing in front of a colonel trying to make a defensive tournament argument was not trying to be an attorney. i wanted to provide that information. >> thank you note always been a world apart no person shall be held to answer for an otherwise infamous cries unless under presenter indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising -- or in the militia, so there are special rules.
you generally don't have a grand jury in the military system. you do not always have a trial jury as christmas shunned in the military system. the judge, in every other at federal proceeding for someone who has lived for ten year, it is not always true in the military system or actually, the judges a military officer in the article to executive branch chain of command. the military justices has always been a distinctive domain. >> a question from wild and wonderful on twitter. did good you know how to preserve the right to -- the fact that he brought a hate bias appeal suggests one or the other? >> i'm not sure that the ultimate form that he sought relief suggests one way or another, i think yet actually did a pretty good job wearing the case from prison. i think, in a sense, and i'm just guessing here that his insistence on a lawyer and the fact that he was so insistent
that the supreme court gave him a right to a lawyer even though, as the professor indicated, he was wrong about that, i think that just float from an innate sense of justice. of course he was entitled to a lawyer. i do not know if he had ever read betts. i don't think so. he just thought of, of course i am entitled to a lawyer. >> steve in missouri, what is your question for us? >> the state of missouri has been serious budget problems so it had to cut back on a number of public defenders. public defenders are overworked. what they have done is set up a whole series of cases or charges or you can only face a fine, and therefore you are not entitled to a lawyer, but even though it's only fine, you go to court and you are facing the entire power and weight of the state government against you
just trying to win the case, or is he going to have to try to or want to establish an even broader principle? >> this the same right for only serious criminal cases, or does it apply to traffic court. as we heard in an earlier question, should it apply to civil cases? at the end of the day, he has a duty and obligation to his client and he offers the court the narrower option, saying all you need to decide today in order for my client to win is to say in all serious cases, not just death penalty cases, but in felonies. that is all the court really does decide. later cases, just as black's opinion is not clear on how broad or narrow the right of counsel is. he says it applies in state cases, but we will not look at all of the circumstances, like betts v. brady, only later cases established in the felony line. paul: if i can say one thing about the situation of abe fortas, he has an interesting dynamic in terms of his loyalty to his client here, because he knows he is being appointed to argue the case to overrule betts >> v. brady, but he has an obligation to win the case on any grounds. so one of the things he does when he is first assigned the case is to search for the special circumstances that might allow him to win the case, even under betts v. brady. i was really struck by that as the great example of the lawyers obligation to the client. he kind of knows that if he
finds special circumstances, this will not be in one more case, but he has got to look for them anyways in order to satisfy his art obligation to his client. >> sean from virginia, you are. it >> thank you for having me. quick question. basically, is there an example of a conviction that was overturned after this decision was rendered, because it was determined that the defendant was not given adequate counsel? i will hang up close. and q. >> the principle that this case establishes applies not just to gideon, but to all sorts of other people, all the cases that were on appeal at the same time and later cases are actually going to say, it applies even more broadly and that, to all sorts of people whose convictions had been final, but when gideon was decided, but they did not have proper lawyers -- it will also have some
implications whenever someone is prosecuted for some crime committed years after gideon, and the claim -- and they are convicted and they did not even have a lawyer -- but the question is whether their sentences should ever be enhanced because of an earlier conviction that they had without the benefit of council. >> we learned that the decision came down on march 1818 -- excuse me, 1963. that it was unanimous. and hugo black authored the unanimous decision. even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. left without the aid of council, he may be put on trial without a proper charge and convicted upon incompetent evidence or evidence irrelevant to the issue, or otherwise inadmissible. he lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense.
he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. 22 states as friends of the court argue that that was anachronism handed down and should not be overruled and we agree. three justices, even though it was unanimous, wrote separately to express their agreement. they were tom, clark john marshall harlan the second, and william oh douglas. these were called concurrent since. why did they pick a time to do that? >> they all had their reasons to write separately. i think for justice clark, it was for him, the real reason, is that the court had already extended the right to capital cases, and he did not see a difference between capital cases and non capital cases, because the due process protects your life and your liberty. for justice necklace, it was a very specific reason. as i alluded to earlier, he and justice black had a unique approach to the incorporation of the bill of rights, and it
is a little bit of an irony that justice black, who has this distinctive view, because he is a sign the majority opinion -- he can't fully embrace that in the majority opinion. so justice black does it for him in a concurring opinion. but justice harlan's opinion and some respects as i think the most interesting and his vote in the majority is maybe the most surprising. and he has a line in his concurrence the effect that the court is dealing, dealing with the betts case and he thinks that case, although it should be overruled, deserves a more proper burial. it is that last line you read where just as black concludes that basically betts was wrong, but it was decided, but justice harlan will not go that far.
he says essentially the experience has shown that has a federalist matter this does not work he also writes to distance himself from the douglas view of incorporation. so you get a sense of those opinions of the separate opinions come come, although they are all short, you get a sense of some of the underlying currents in the court at that time. >> this is a case of course about gideon, but it is such a sweet vindication for hugo black, because he dissented in that and now -- he can't quite resist. it is a human tendency to say, i told you so. i was right all along, and yes, justice harlan cannot quite go along with that. but hugo black -- this is vindication for a view that he had been putting forth forever. >> next we will listen to clarence gideon and the attorney for florida talk about the reaction to the supreme court's decision. >> i felt great.
, because i was listening for the decision on the radio when it came on. most of the prison population heard it. you could hear it from ten miles. and i also received a telegram congratulating me on the decision. >> the phone call from anthony lewis, he was the reporter from the new york times at the supreme court he was allowed to sit within the bar. anyway, he promised me that when the opinion came down, since he was at the court he would immediately call me and tell me what the result was. i was disappointed that the decision was unanimous. i was hoping maybe there was at least one justice, justice harlan, a couple other justices that at least we thought might vote on our side. >> and in fact, the country was waiting for this decision. we have a new york times front
page article it extends ruling on free council. what was the reaction nationally to this in the media and other legal circles? >> i think the reaction was very positive to this decision. i think the fact that it was unanimous was an important component of that. i think if the court had come out the same way five to four, i'm not sure the decision would have had quite the effect that it did. and the effect went beyond just the narrow circumstances of the case, because we alluded to the fact that there was council provided in the federal system, that it was not always provided that well or systematically. in the gideon case really was sort of a watershed development in terms of not just extending the right to the states, but also really reforming the system more generally so that
counsel was available, experienced counsel in many more places than it had been. >> florida, the floodgate argument, that they had more than 1000 prisoners in florida prisons, he would have a trial without counsel and they were worried about retrain khamenei's case. next up, we will hear wayne right, who is the head of the florida prisons, from 1962 to 1987, talk about the impact of the decision on this state. >> we've had a total of about 5300 motions, petitions for relief as a result of this decision. and of course, we have had over 1000 that have been totally released as a result of it. >> many people are afraid that all of these men have been released and they will just go right out and commit crimes again. >> yes, that has been a concern
of those in law enforcement and the officials of our state. however, we have not found that that has been the case, because out of the over 1000 who have been released, we have only had about 4% that have returned with a new conviction so far as we know. >> how does that compare to the national average? >> the national average is about 65%. 65% of our population, and about 20% of those released on parole returned to prison. >> you're going to set aside -- a gideon memorial hall? >> no sir, i do not believe it will go that far, but he will be remembered here a long time, i am sure. >> anything to make of this? >> i think it is stunning. i mean, there is no reason to think that there is something about these thousand people that somehow, they were
uniquely unlikely to be recidivists if they were in fact guilty of the underlying crime. i do not think you can listen to those remarkable statistics -- 4% versus 65%, and not think that a lot of those thousand people that were released were probably innocent of the underlying crime. >> which is just what hugo black said in that wonderful quote that you offered. he said that the problem is that people are maybe being convicted just because they are poor rather than guilty. >> earlier, you told us that gideon had argued heaviest corpus, and in fact, in this book from anthony lewis about anthony lee newest, we learn that he was frustrated by the supreme court's decision because they thought if he had ruled in his favor he would be let out of jail. what actually happened to him? >> because he was not a lawyer and it is not double jeopardy to retry someone who is
actually convicted the first time. he set aside the conviction, it is mean the game is over. it means you retry. you play the game again. so he thought he was absolutely done, and he was not at all pleased when he was repeatedly informed by lawyers, now there is going to have to be a new trial. and eventually, there is a new trial, and i hope we are going to talk about that. >> we are. in fact, frank turner was the lawyer who represented him in a second trial. we are going to listen to clarence gideon now. he is talking about his legal fortunes and having a lawyer represent him and here's what happened to. we go to trial exactly two years in one day from the first trial. we are going the same witnesses,
same courtroom, same judge, same kind of a jury. through mr. turner's efforts the evidence was so simple it would've been impossible for me to have committed a crime. >> on august 5th 1963, a new six man jury found clearance earl gideon not guilty. >> i think of winning that acquittal was the most important thing in this whole case. it showed the difference definitely between not having an attorney and being with an attorney. >> ian pollack laments akhil amar and your reaction him saying that paul clementa. first >> the story in this case will not be the same if he were convicted again henry trial it
dramatically shows the difference a lawyer can make. and if you get into the sort of details of how to reach all took place, his lawyer was really able to pin down the government's key witness and point out to the jury has prior criminal history and criminal activities and bring that star witness for the prosecution, put him in a drop dramatically different light. he suggested he was actually involved in the crime himself in the serving as the lookout for the perpetrators of the crime as opposed to this innocent eyewitness. he was able to point out that basically given the phone with he was at and where he was looking he probably could not even seen into the pool. there were all these things in the government's case that looks so differently. when you had a lawyer there who was able to very effectively cross examine the star witness.
and then make a closing argument brought it all together for the jury. >> this is the perfect illustration of the point that the courtroom is governed by these very technical rules of evidence. the star witness against him, and gideon aston if he had ever been arrested, and that was objected to. but the lawyer was able to bring out, we'll have you ever been convicted, and the fellow said not quite. there was probation, law blah blah. so the lawyer knew how to navigate the evidence in a way that gideon did not. >> so the impact of this decision for criminal defendants, how did it didn't affect the system? we just look at what to say. this how did the getting when
right case affect the criminal justice system with regard to the sixth amendment right. ? it >> this becomes a nationwide right to getting cases it isn't impetus for reforms in the federal system, providing appointed counsel and creating the financial structure so that somebody can actually provide this service and make a living as a lawyer, be an expert in criminal law. you have public defenders offices that are put in place after this decision. is an interesting way to that this gideon decision is related to the rest of the warns court revolution and criminal procedure. the war in court is giving criminals new rights, but the complicated new rights that you really need a lawyer to take advantage of. it's not clear to me the you
could've had the rest of the warren court in front of procedure revolution if you do not have gideon in place. >> there are rights to have rights and in the real world basically, if you can't vote and you're not able to protect yourself, the right to vote is preservative of all of. writes the right to have right. that is in the real world. in the special, artificial world of the cart room, which is governed by rules of evidence in procedural cause kinds of legal technicalities, the lawyer has a right to have rights and without that none of your other rights are particularly meaningful. just like in a real world, unless you can back something up with a right to vote, politicians will not pay much attention to what you think. so we see a lot of people out there right now taking to the streets for this cause or that one i say to both people on both sides, you can't just march, you have to vote. because if you don't vote,
actually won't be heard, in the courtroom you have to have a lawyer or you will not be heard. >> we actually dealt with two other decisions part of this framework and our first season of landmark cases. miranda versus arizona 1966. they are on c-span website. you can also order our landmark cases companion volume written by tony moral who is a long supreme court reporter that can give you all the framework for these cases as we work our way through the 12 in the website. we want to space thank you and giving background special thanks to the national constitution center. they've been our partners in the series for season one season to. and they've helped us with the cases and looking at for the programs this case has been detected depicted as we saw. it's been depicted as we saw on
the analysts book also in a movie. why do you think the popular movie media was a treat by this case? >> well i think paul is right. if he doesn't get acquitted in the second trial, you can just see the difference between having a lawyer and not. at the very least there is reasonable doubt, and he's an intelligent person, but he is a layperson he was not able to tell his story the right way in court, and a way that six jurors could understand. but with that outcome, the different outcome of the second time around, it is made for hollywood. just to remind the audience, it could've been that the supreme court was looking for a vehicle to do this and it could've been another person who is guilty is all get out, and the retrial would not have made a difference and maybe doesn't
feel quite the same way, least for hollywood purposes. >> and some of these cases is david versus goliath is mid? the >> two components that made it so great for television was a result of the retrial and the fact that the petition, the letter to the court was handwritten. i think if he is convicted on retrial, it does not make it to the hallmark series and if he types the petition, i'm not sure it has the same residence with people. but everybody has that same in eight cents you can take a case all the way to the supreme court. and if someone as meek and humble as clarence gideon can take his case to the supreme court by writing out his petition in pencil on a piece of paper, it really does show that anybody can take their case all the way to the supreme court. >> and he was no choir. boy let's just remind the audience that he had for prior felony convictions. >> he spent 17 years in jail
prior to. this >> in texas, in missouri, now this is florida and the federal system. it's true for some of the other landmark cases, that some of the litigants are characters. >> that is why we like this series. next we have a call from marco. >> thank you. you've already answered my question about the public response to the case, but maybe you can shed some light on what happened to aid for abe forties. why was he rejected for chief justice when he was nominated by johnson? >> there were some allegations of financial impropriety and paul and i both commended lawyers further legal ethics, in this case representing his clients interests rather than trying to make a name for himself in a landmark case. he is eventually nominated to replace none other than earl
warren. he was going to be elevated. he was already on the supreme court as an associate justice and he was nominated for the chief justice position, but in the course of that nomination process a second vetting occurred and allegations of financial impropriety arose about taking money that he should not have. in various contacts. >> semenya viewer on twitter asks whether the representation influence a decision to appoint in the court in the first place? >> i don't know if it heard i don't think it was a critical thing. i think it was some of the same characteristics of this practice that recommended him to the court as the appointee for this particular landmark case also would've recommended into the president as somebody who could sit on the supreme court. neck >> next is a call from greg and dayton. >> thank you for taking my
call. i have a question about these landmark cases. my wife and i've been in the state and federal courts for the last 18 years on matters insurance company fraud. we made and original instant action for a jury demand in this trial and for 18 years now we have not had our due process under the fifth and 14th amendment to uphold a seventh amendment for this right to a jury trial. i don't know if you guys can make a comment on that. how do americans citizens get their day in court as a force a litigant as politicians and judges and even you guess your paul who was what was that our core his case before him, why do we not do we have our day in court against insurance companies? and how do we get? it thank. you >> one of the backdrops for this case we have alluded to is
the debate over the incorporation of the due process clause. justice black and justice douglas were the foremost proponents of total incorporation, so every provision of the bill of rights would be applaudable to the states. but although they argued for that position year after year, it didn't ultimately carry the day in the supreme court of the united states, so what we had was a process where some of the bill of rights apply to the states and some others of the bill of rights do not apply to the states. and the seventh amendment jury trial as one of those provisions that hasn't been incorporated again against the states, so i think that's part of the answer to why a seventh amendment argument in a state court system is likely to be ineffective. >> we're running out of time pretty quickly. let's use our last piece of video. it's clarence earl gideon once
again. he's asked about what his legacy is in what how he should be remembered. >> did you have any feelings about having made history in your case? have you ever felt like a historical figure? >> no. i wasn't nothing. it wasn't nothing i had done. i was just fortunate enough to have a case to come along at a time that the united states supreme court wanted to. the majority, it was unanimous, they wanted to redo this decision and make it possible to everybody in the united states should have a legal counsel. >> clarence gideon reflecting on the role he played in this landmark decision which changed american jurisprudence we have
a bit minute left. like to ask both of you. what should people take away from our discussion tonight about the importance of this? case >> the right to council is fundamental. i just can't help but nope it and when you listen to clarence gideon it is remarkable how much self knowledge and humility he has about the role that he played. he did play an important role by preserving this argument and bringing it all the way to the supreme court. but even he seems to recognize, quite remarkably, that the court was ready to do this and he was in some respects very fortunate to have the right case of the right time. >> as much progress is getting embodies, it can be asked whether we have really done full justice to the deep ideas. whether we are providing enough resources in the criminal domain to make good in a full reality. there are folks that say we
should have gone beyond felony cases to misdemeanor cases, traffic court cases. you heard questions about six civil cases for indigenous and others. you heard questions today about civil juries. their lawyers that lament the vanishing jury trial, state and funeral federal, a lot of things are pleaded out. they never get to trial, definitely don't get to jury trial. one entity that is really championing civil juries in an interesting way as a project it and why you law school organized by a great lawyer called steve estimate. you won't be surprised the way back when he was a law clerk to the great jury trial lawyer hugo black. >> thanks very much to yell scone a kick paul clement akhil
center, we explore the issues, people and places involved in some of the most significant supreme court cases in our nation's history. we begin at eight eastern with cats versus united states. a case that expanded americans right to privacy under the fourth amendment. it changed the way law enforcement officer officers conducted their investigation. at 9:35, brandenburg the ohio, a case in which the supreme court overturned the hate speech conviction of clarence brandenburg, and ohio ku klux klan leader -- a unanimous decision of holding mr. brandenburg's right to free expression free expression even if offensive. friday night on c-span three and anytime at c-span.org.