,
11 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Yesterday, while we were all focusing on Cohen hearing, Justice Thomas & Gorsuch issued a terrifying dissenting opinion. Would undermine the well-established constitutional right to appointed counsel in criminal cases. They’d overturn Gideon v. Wainwright. Goodbye public defense. 
55 yrs ago, Gideon held that “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.” Yesterday, Thomas & Gorsuch criticized the ruling as too “expansive.”
Of course, the Justices relied on the apparent understanding of the Constitution at the time of ratification. They claimed it simply rejected the English practice of *prohibiting people from engaging a lawyer* if they so chose &, unlike all of my clients, were *able to afford.*
But they also looked to experience since. Not usually their thing. And...
Claimed people accused of crimes who can’t afford a lawyer *dont need* constitutional protection bc Federal & state govts have shown they know how to do what’s “necessary” to fund appointed counsel anyway.
Claimed people accused of crimes who can’t afford a lawyer *dont need* constitutional protection bc Federal & state govts have shown they know how to do what’s “necessary” to fund appointed counsel anyway.
Apparently, Thomas & Gorsuch are unaware of the crisis of underfunded public defenders, crushing caseloads, & denial of meaningful representation, as the promise of Gideon has never fully been realized. They also clearly never read this stunning report: nytimes.com/interactive/20…
At *this time* in our history, we should only be talking about improving the right to counsel, breathing life into the true meaning of meaningful representation & Gideon. Instead of going thru the purely academic exercise of calling one of the most impt decisions “dubious.”
We should also be talking about *expanding* the right to counsel outside of criminal court. Today, millions of people face deportation alone w/ no recognized right to counsel. Only 37% of immigrants have access to counsel. Learn more about impact here: whiletheywait.org/#action
It’s not just immigration proceedings. People are forced to fight for their rights, often against trained government lawyers in all kinds of consequential civil cases, including housing, child removals, family defense matters. For a background on Gideon: vimeo.com/61814841
Here's @steve_vladeck on Garza -- and the same dissent -- yesterday. Also really worthwhile replies.
4 out of 5 pages handwritten pages Clarence Gideon mailed from Florida prison to the Supreme Court asking them to extend the right to counsel to state cases. They granted review. Future Justice Abe Fortas argued for him. On March 18, 1963, the Court ruled unanimously for Gideon.
Thomas & Gorsuch want to go “back to a system that generated even more wrongful convictions than are generated now, back to a time when indigent defendants had no hope of being fairly represented.” brennancenter.org/blog/gideon-wh…
