Jerold H. Israel

Gideon v. Wainwright: The "Art" of Overruling

Jerold H. Israel is Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan. 1 Four of the decisions dealt directly with the procedure in state criminal cases. See Draper v. Washington, 372 US. 487 (1963) (concerning the nature of the record that must be furnished an indigent to afford him an equal opportunity to utilize the state appellate process); Lane v. Brown, 372 US. 477 (1963) (rejecting an Indiana law requiring a public defenders approval before an indigent defendant can obtain a free transcript of his trial record which is a prerequisite to an appeal from a denial of a writ of error coram nobis); Douglas v. California, 372 US. 353 (1963) (requiring the appointment of counsel to assist an indigent in prosecuting a nondiscretionary appeal); and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US. 335 (1963) (requiring the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants instate noncapital criminal cases). The other two decisions concerned federal habeas corpus for state prisoners. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Townsend v. Sain, 372 US. 293 (1963). 2 See, e.g., TIME 17-18 (March 29, 1963); Editorial, Washington Post, March 21, 1963, p. A-22, col. 1.

Federal Criminal Procedure as a Model for the States

Although subject to significant restraints under federal law, states retain considerable leeway in shaping their criminal justice procedures. In their exercise of that authority, states are subject both to influences that push in the direction of individualistic innovation and to countervailing influences that push in the direction of emulating the reforms adopted in other jurisdictions. The end result is state laws of criminal procedure that vary in many respects from state to state but also reflect the significant influence of various “models.” Foremost among those models are the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and several federal statutes. Although these federal laws were adopted for a federal criminal justice system that in many ways is quite different from the typical state system, they have been replicated in basic structure and content by numerous states. Exactly why the states have chosen this path is uncertain, but the path is now so well traveled that any changes in the federal law of criminal procedure automatically take on a significance that extends far beyond a federal system that in itself handles only a minute portion of all criminal prosecutions.