Right to Assistance of Counsel Flashcards
Policy Question:
will a defense lawyer who is being paid by the gov’t represent the client to the best of their ability? Risk of damaging reputation if completely obedient to client - idea that if you don’t pay for a lawyer means that they don’t truly represent you
There has always been a right throughout our history for a defendant to be represented by attorneys - but modern idea is that defendant has right for gov’t to appoint lawyer if he can’t afford one in certain circumstances. This is in some ways an odd idea b/c there are a lot of things you have a right to but the gov’t doesn’t pay for them (e.g. right to bear arms, medical care, etc). This is esp. Interesting because here the gov’t pays for defense attorneys, prosecutors, and cops, so paying for both sides of the transaction.
20th century idea of a Right to a lawyer - if you can’t afford one, you’ll get one appointed to me. If originalist, then have to argue that gideon v. wainwright is wrong b/c there was no idea that you could get a lawyer appointed to you if you couldn’t afford one
Johnson v. Zerbst
SCOTUS held that an indigent defendant in a significant federal case had a Sixth Amendment right to be appointed counsel
The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not “still be done.” It embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel. That which is simple, orderly and necessary to the lawyer, to the untrained layman may appear intricate, complex and mysterious
Powell v. Alabama
RULE: The 14th amendment would require for the court to establish counsel for a defendant in a special circumstance (i.e. defendant was incompetent, uneducated, illiterate, etc)
Also established idea that a trial without a lawyer is no trial at all
bunch of young black guys got in a fight with a bunch of white guys and black guys were accused of SA’ing a white girl. They all went to trial together and all 9 defendants were convicted in one day and 8 of them got the death penalty. SCOTUS reversed b/c defendant’s were assigned their lawyers the day of the trial and didn’t have a chance to talk to their lawyers and it wasn’t clear as to which lawyer represented which defendant because the lawyers didn’t want to be associated with the defense. This case was significant b/c it described as to what was effective assistance of counsel and established a “special circumstances” group.
Betts v. Brady (1942) (overturned by Gideon)
RULE: 14th Amendment did not require court appointed counsel in state courts
Federal courts generally much more friendly to right of counsel whereas states are much more hostile.
Gideon v. Wainwright
RULE: The 14th Amendment requires that the state must appoint state representation to a defendant in a non-petty criminal case (using Sixth Amendment Right to counsel) (but doesn’t describe what non-petty is)
The court overturned the old ‘special circumstances’ test from Betts v. Brady and
expanded the right to appointed counsel from Powell v. Alabama to non-capital felonies.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger and Scott establish definition of what is a non-petty case: whenever the defendant is actually imprisoned. Actual imprisonment of any length triggers the right to counsel. (still the rule)
Gideon applies only when defendant actually gets jail (where the defendant is in fact sentenced to jail, he must have been represented by counsel even if it sentence was less than 6 months.)
b. Refused to extend 6-month rule from Duncan v. LA which applies to the right to jury trial.
c. But, no right to counsel where jail sentence is authorized, but not imposed. Need actual jail. (Scott v. IL)
Duncan
where potential penalty is greater than 6 months triggers right to jury trial.
Nichols v. United States
RULE: Uncounseled prior conviction may be used to enhance sentence
defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, for which he was fined but not jailed. He was not represented in the DUI proceeding. Seven years later, he was convicted on federal drug charges, and under the federal sentencing guidelines, the earlier, uncounseled DUI conviction led to an addition of roughly two years to his federal prison sentence. The Court upheld the sentence and found that it did not violate the right to counsel. Courts are free to look at whatever they want and that includes first offense conviction without counsel.
Alabama v. Shelton
RULE: A suspended or conditional sentence that may result in incarceration (i.e. probation) may not be imposed unless the defendant was given counsel at trial
a court appointed counsel is required if the underlying conviction may lead to a conviction even if they get probation or something. Scalia argues that the rule is and always has been actual imprisonment which isn’t the case here. Greenberg disagrees with Scalia.
Right to Jury vs. Right to Counsel
right to trial by jury (based off potential sentence of 6 months or later)
right to counsel triggered by prison sentence (any length)
