Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Peer into the Nine

Customer Rating:

This book gives a great account of how a simple criminal case made its way to the Supreme Court, but also explains a lot about the court's reasoning when it comes to criminal cases and stare decisis. Also helps show how a brilliant legal minds works, and highlights the differences between a lawyer and a person with no professional knowledge of the law - differences that any law student must overcome if they are to be successful.

Good Introduction into Law	Customer Rating:
The author is a New York Times Columnist, meaning he knows how to write. He weaves story-telling with historical data, so the whole thing isn't fun; but it's balanced. The author goes to enormous lengths to educate the reader and keep the information as stimulating as possible. There were many instances when I couldn't put the book down, or wait to pick it up again.

An American classic	Customer Rating:
This was on our required reading list when I took political science in college, and umpteen years later, it still deserves to be required. When young friends are considering law school, I buy them Scott Turow's "One L," so they'll know what law school is like, and "Gideon's Trumpet" so they'll know why they should stick it out.

Gideon is a good read!	Customer Rating:
This book is a very good read, especially for those who have never really spent the time to understand the difference between federal & state court systems, or for those who want to learn fundamentals about the US Supreme Court. The story of Clarence Earl Gideon is pretty remarkable.

Nice book on the practice and doctrine of the Supreme Court

Customer Rating:

This is a nifty little book on the workings of the Supreme Court circa 1963. The particular case examined is Gideon vs. Wainwright, the decision that resulted in a right to counsel even when it can't be afforded. The book describes the review process from Gideon's petition to the final judgment, with emphasis on why the court chose to take that case and make the decision it did. The particulars: Gideon was arrested and tried for breaking and entering, requested an attorney at his trial and was denied. He petitioned the state supreme court and was rejected, then filed with the Supreme Court. They heard the case and overturned the state decision, requiring a new trial. Why did the SCOTUS accept the case? A previous case, Betts vs. Brady, laid down the rule that counsel was not required for a fair trial unless there were extenuating circumstances. In the years that followed everybody petitioned to qualify, creating a mess. States responded on their own by providing counsel, such that by 1961 only thirteen states had no such provision. So the SCOTUS took it because 1) The criteria in Betts vs. Brady was vague and unpredictable 2) Most states figured this out and already accommodated mandatory counsel so the consequence of overturning Betts was minimal. 3) This was during the civil rights era and a majority of the SCOTUS did not favor state privileges. Not coincidentally, the states with the fewest guaranties of counsel were in the south. Was this a good decision? It's hard to fault. It's sad that the practice of law is so complex that the average citizen is considered incompetent to speak for himself. And it's possible to carry this further- should people be provided with accountants in order to do taxes? Fund managers to invest their money? Overkill is a risk, but its worse to turn one's back on a manifest injustice- the conviction of a citizen without proper trial. In Florida more than half the inmates in the penal system had no counsel at trial. How can that be right? The decision was a step further down the road of empowering Due Process, ie the Incorporation Doctrine. That doctrine states that the fourteenth amendment does not apply all constitutional protections against states, but that certain rights can be applied through the "due process" clause. Under this concept, a state law banning discussion of say, the civil war would be overturned for limiting speech without a review of the specific speech and specfic circumstances, ie due process. The flip side to this is the recent Kelo decision, which said the state could seize private property at will if the proper planning meetings were held. If land can be seized, what else can be taken? In particular in the context of terrorism what laws could say, NY or the DC pass in the interest of security? What exactly is required of due process?