I had to read this for Criminal Procedure and frankly I'm glad that it doesn't seem to be required reading in most classrooms anymore. The only people who should read this (without any real necessity) are law students or bored attorneys. Anyone else deserves a more updated look at the way the American legal system works.

Admittedly, so far as I am aware, a lot is unchanged. The basic procedure for a number of things is probably pretty much the same, and that's why only people directly involved in the legal field should read it. It's a nice learning tool and a neat look at history. There are some very interesting descriptions of people and events in the book that make you feel like you're actually there or watching archival footage of what was going on. One of the more interesting parts is a detailed letter Gideon wrote to Fortas about his life, contained in full detail. I enjoy reading about history, so that was quite interesting. My favorite part of the book, however, is reading about Gideon's last lawyer in the book, W. Fred Turner, who did a masterful job with some authorial explanatory detail that just makes it enjoyable to read, and particularly rewarding after reading the rest of the story. A true testament to what good lawyers can accomplish. Not what I know the average indigent defendant today will receive (and not for lack of trying; I understand the plight of the overworked public defender), but well. There's that 1964 publication date and the author does talk about the problem for a few pages.

And that's my biggest problem with the book. It was published in 1964, only a year after the case at the story's heart. I don't think that's too soon to talk about something or even write about it, but I really wish there was someone who had written a modern-day version of this novel for the 2015 audience. It's irritating, at best, to constantly hear about how lawyers and judges and justices are "men" who are the most educated and how Washington is filled with well-educated "men" and how the law is a man's world. The legal world still has plenty of gender issues. But lawyers aren’t JUST men anymore. Lawmakers aren’t JUST men anymore (and they weren’t JUST men in 1964 but whatever). It's a book out of time and the middle/upper-class white-male lens is aggravating, at best.

It's quite odd to see the author referencing certain seminal cases by name but for some reason choosing to reference what I'm presuming is Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education as "the school segregation cases". The observations on certain justices as living people when the entire bench of Gideon v. Wainwright has passed away (the most recent passed away in the early 2000s) is frequently disconcerting, particularly as this is meant to help us understand how the supreme court works today. I understand that reading historical literature does that, but still. There are also like two chapters that are completely invalid where the author waxes poetic on politics and legal decisions that have been invalidated or changed due to changing social opinion.

I do appreciate the way it didn’t just feature the case as an anomaly. Rather, the case was the culmination of social and political feeling moving towards the justices wanting this change. I liked how it focused on the people involved and it was really interesting to see how the states were largely on the side of this decision. Like my professor said, the way it focused on the people involved and not just the concepts really helped. There's a lot of detail about how the whole thing came together, who was involved, and how it wasn't just a tiny man named Gideon against an array of state lawyers who wouldn't let him speak (at least in the Supreme Court).

Overall, honestly, unless you’re a MAJOR history fan and there’s nowhere else you can turn to for a decent look at the history around this case, or else unless you’re a law student required to read this for something, read something else. ( )

An interesting book for the details it gives into how the Supreme Court works. We get details on how petitions are made, how clerkships work, how briefs are formulated. (Some of these details are dated and inaccurate for today, and unfortunately a modern reader not familiar with the Supreme Court would have no idea. For example, the composition of lawyers arguing cases before the Court has narrowed a lot.)

The subtitle is rather misleading, though, even though Lewis tries to back it up:

> The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is in part a testament to a single human being. Against all the odds of inertia and ignorance and fear of state power, Clarence Earl Gideon insisted that he had a right to a lawyer and kept on insisting all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In fact, this is pretty much nonsense. The Supreme Court case and its outcome had very little to do with anything from Gideon. It was not about his insistence, his persistence—no, he was just there at the right time. The court wanted a case in order to change Betts v. Brady, and Gideon came along. His lawyers argued the case well, while the other side only tried halfheartedly since they knew they'd lost coming in.

> His triumph there shows that the poorest and least powerful of men—a convict with not even a friend to visit him in prison—can take his cause to the highest court in the land and bring about a fundamental change in the law.

And this moral is, therefore, also wrong. (This also means that a large part of the book, describing all the details of Gideon's life, turns out to be irrelevant.)

It is not just details that have fallen out of date. My biggest problem is that Lewis seems determined to blow a trumpet for the Supreme Court, papering over or simply ignoring its flaws.

> The freedom to decide as one’s conscience and intellect demand, without fear of political retribution, is a rare luxury for any office-holder, and it certainly helps to explain what happens to men when they don the robes of a Supreme Court justice. The southern Senator required to go through the motions of defending segregation—and many in the Senate today are only going through the motions—can shed that dispiriting burden if he goes on the bench. The state judge who has to look to political bosses for re-election—as many do—cuts that tie upon appointment to the Supreme Court. The independence given to the justices enables them to do things that others know are right but have never had the courage or the determination to do by themselves.

Today politicians on the Supreme Court parrot Fox News. Is it good that they can do so "without fear of political retribution"? Is it good that they have the "courage and determination" to commit rape? Obviously, one can tilt too far to one side or the other, but Lewis's determination to look at the Court through rose-colored glasses, and skip over its darker side, makes his book worse than naive. ( )

This book tells the story of the 9-0 Supreme Court decision holding that the due process clause under the 14th amendment requires that defendants in state criminal cases be provided counsel if they are unable to afford to pay for counsel. The book is interesting and well-written and recounts Gideon's story as the appellant, the appointment of Abe Fortas by the Supreme Court to handle the appeal, his strategy, how the Supreme Court makes decisions, the precedent relevant to the case and also the personalities and views of the then-serving Justices. ( )

Very new and original description of the procedures and politics behind hearing a case in front of the US Supreme court. Good legal writing for the layman. ( )

This book tells the story of the important Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright, which established that all defendants, even in state courts, must have counsel, which must be provided for them if they are unable to pay for this themselves. We are so accustomed to hearing this guarantee asserted when someone is arrested that it is useful to be reminded that until this case was decided in 1963, some state courts (primarily in the South) routinely tried people without providing them with an attorney. An interesting book. ( )