Free Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis Page B

really. He may have committed this crime, but it was never proved by the prosecution. A lawyer—not a great lawyer, just an ordinary, competent lawyer—could have made ashes of the case.”
    But Abe Fortas’s curiosity was not satisfied. There was still mystery about Clarence Earl Gideon, his character, his history. The trial transcript had been singularly uninformative about the human beings involved, except for a general air of shabbiness. Fortas considered going to see his client in the state prison at Raiford, Florida.
    “I thought I should find out something about his background, in case a question should come up,” Fortas said later. “One question, for example, was whether I should refer to the severity of the sentence—five years for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He came out of this bar with a bottle of red-eye in his hand; it was a petty crime. It occurred to me that I might make some indignant statement about the severity of that sentence, but then there could be a reason I didn’t know. Another thing I specifically wanted to find out was whether he was a Negro.All these things suggested that I see him. On the other hand, there was the chance of involvement, and of going improperly outside the record of this case. I decided against seeing Gideon, but as it turned out I was able to satisfy my doubts by correspondence.”
    The correspondence was started by Gideon. On August 1st he wrote Fortas that he had had a letter from the Clerk of the Supreme Court “informing me that you were appointed to represent me in my litigation. I have not heard from you,” Gideon continued, “and I would like to find out if you are going to represent me. Because I don’t know what to do.” Fortas replied that he was “indeed going to represent you in the proceedings before the Supreme Court and our office is currently working on the preparation of your brief. There is nothing further for you to do,” the letter said reassuringly, adding: “We will, of course, keep you posted as to the course of proceedings in the Supreme Court.”
    On September 11th Fortas sent Gideon a memorandum filed in the case. Gideon replied on September 16th, expressing his thanks and continuing: “Everything containing to my case is of the highest interest to me and everone in the prison. And we will certainly welcome all the information about it that is possible. I wish that it was possible to tell you the truth about my case, which I am sure that the record does not show. I did not have the ability to cross-examine the witness nor did I have anyone to investigate things before my trial, so my trial is far from the truth.”
    A letter from Gideon on October 29th said: “I guess I am impation but it seems to take a long time, but I understand that something like this does. If there is any information that I might be able to give you that will help the case I will give it.” Perhaps that suggested an opening to Fortas. On October 31st he replied:
    Dear Mr. Gideon:
    I acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 29. I can understand your impatience, but I am glad that you realize that a review by the Supreme Court of the United States takes a good deal of time.…
    As you probably know, the review must be based upon the record in your case. I see no difficulty with the transcript of record because your case will undoubtedly be decided on the very fundamental point as to whether the State of Florida was obliged to furnish you with counsel.
    However, as a matter of my own interest, I should be very glad to receive from you a careful and detailed biographical description: when and where you were born, education, employment, family, arrests, and any other information that may come to your mind. I want to emphasize that this is not at all necessary, and that it will serve only to give me a little background. I know that you will be extremely careful to be absolutely accurate in any information that you send along to