How individuals move legal revolutions

 

Fifty years ago, on March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution stood for something that the justices previously had said it didn’t.

In June 1942, the court had upheld the robbery conviction of a poor Maryland man, Smith Betts, saying that the Constitution’s due-process guarantee didn’t require states to provide legal counsel for indigent defendants unless, under the circumstances, trying an accused without a lawyer’s help would be “offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness.”

But, almost 20 years later, Clarence Earl Gideon mailed his pencil-written petition to the justices seeking a hearing. Gideon, at 51, had been sentenced to five years in prison for the felony of breaking into a poolroom in Panama City. He had asked his trial judge to appoint a lawyer, saying, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel.”

Gideon’s request was denied, so he took his case up the appellate chain to the Supreme Court itself.

On a March Monday in 1963, a unanimous high court overruled the Betts decision and said due process means felony defendants in state as well as federal courts were entitled to lawyers.

“In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him,” Justice Hugo Black wrote.

The late New York Times writer Anthony Lewis, in his brilliantly readable 1964 book Gideon’s Trumpet,” examined how one individual, “the single and least powerful of men,” had helped “bring about a fundamental change in the law.”

Lewis clearly and intricately explained how the court does its work and how Gideon happened onto a current that transformed constitutional rights for the criminally accused in America.

“That is the wonder of the law: that it moves case by case, seeking justice for each individual, but that any single case may be part of some larger movement,” Lewis wrote.

Lewis died on March 25 at age 85, and the many tributes to him credit him with revolutionizing how journalists report about the Supreme Court. He wrote about litigants as real human beings, put their predicaments into a larger context and underscored the import of the legal rulings by making them understandable to the public.

Last week, another potentially historic current has been on display at the court, far more conspicuous than the one that swept Gideon along.

On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments on Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008 to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. Wednesday was devoted to the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies a panoply of federal benefits to same-sex couples even though they’re considered married by the states where they live.

The individuals who’ve become the faces of the cases — Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor — didn’t come to their roles quite as accidentally as Gideon, but they’re ordinary folks. While there is most certainly a movement to establish the right of gays and lesbians to marry as fundamentally protected by the U.S. Constitution, this is also about real people’s lives.

Partners Kris Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley, Calif., are soccer/band moms, working women and community volunteers who’ve raised four sons, including twin boys now in high school. A federal appeals court struck down Proposition 8, and supporters of the law want it reinstated. Perry and Stier are the face of those who believe the same-sex marriage ban is wrong and wrongheaded.

Edith Windsor is an 83-year-old New York resident who’s seeking a refund on the more than $300,000 in federal estate taxes she had to pay after her spouse died in 2009 — taxes she wouldn’t have owed had her spouse been a man. She won at the appellate level, too.

We should know by summer whether they’ve brought about another fundamental change in the law.

Linda P. Campbell is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

©2013, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category