In Defense of Wainwright

I spent a lot of time in my Criminal Procedure classes being frustrated with the criminal justice system. The system still allows for mistreatment of racial and ethnic minorities, treats the poor more harshly than the rich, and puts people in jail with little meaningful recourse. However, there was one thing in habeas corpus cases that did create a ton of confusion for me that might be surprising given my general beliefs about the world and about law enforcement.

I never spent much time thinking about the parties in Gideon v. Wainwright, the most important case for what I want to do with my future. Everyone vaguely familiar with criminal law knows the story of Clarence Earl Gideon, the indigent man accused of a burglary who requested that the court provide him with a lawyer because he was too poor to afford one. When the court denied his request he eventually took his case to the Supreme Court with a handwritten letter. He said that his right to counsel was denied. (Spoiler alert: He wins, and now there are Public Defender / Legal Aid systems throughout the country to provide counsel for indigent people accused of crimes).

But what of Wainwright? In most court cases, the petitioner accuses the respondent of some wrongdoing. States aren’t allowed to be sued by individuals thanks to sovereign immunity. When states are sued, the nominal entry is usually the head of the department being sued. In this case, the nominal entry was Louie L. Wainwright. Wainwright was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections from 1962 to 1987. The problem that I have is that Wainwright did nothing to wrong Gideon. In his official capacity, Wainwright could do nothing to remedy Gideon’s situation. More importantly, there are players who have a less tenuous connection to the case.

There was a police officer who wrongly arrested him, a prosecutor who tried his case, and a judge who denied his request to have a lawyer. Each of these people, in their official capacity could have prevented Gideon from going to jail. Each of these people, in their official capacity could be considered to be at fault. Where this makes the most sense would be to have the judge listed as the nominal entry in the Supreme Court case. The police officer and prosecutor, who affected his trial as it related to his innocence of the crime, have nothing to do with why he was heard by the Supreme Court, namely a 6th amendment violation. The trial court judge, who denied Gideon’s request for a lawyer, was the person most connected to the petitioner’s grievance. Wainwright didn’t even hold the position when Gideon was first convicted. Wainwright didn’t get the job until July of 1962 over a year after the burglary happened.

The question is why does it matter? Wainwright probably didn’t lose any sleep over this, and the Gideon case wasn’t the only case where he was listed as a party. I do find it interesting that defense-minded law students look at this case every year and don’t even think about the respondent. It certainly seems mildly unjust that a person having nothing to do with why Gideon was in jail is listed on the case. It seems unjust that a case that deals with one of the major injustices of criminal law has a respondent who didn't create or perpetuate it. It matters because even Louie L. Wainwright deserves some defense.