The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel - Cases Flashcards
(16 cards)
Powell v. AL (1932)
Capital case – “hurried to trial
for a capital offense without
effective appointment of
counsel and without adequate
opportunity to consult even the
counsel casually appointed to
represent them”
Due process requires
appointment of counsel for
capital cases – where
defendant is unable to employ
counsel and is incapable
adequately of making his own
defense . . .
Johnson v. Zerbst
(1938)
Federal Case
Court ruled that the 6th
Amendment required courts to
provide indigent defendants
with appointed counsel in all
serious criminal cases (at least
all felony cases)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
- State case
- non-capital case
- when to apply the 6th amentment to states through the 14th
- “when a provision of the
Bill of Rights is fundamental and
essential to a fair trial” - Overrules Betts – defense attorney is
fundamental and essential to a fair trial - Applies 6th to the States – all defendants
in felony cases have right to an attorney
Right to Counsel - Misdemeanors
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Offense: imprisonment up to 6
months
Supreme Court: “no person may
be imprisoned for any offense,
whether classified as petty,
misdemeanor, or felony, unless
he was represented by counsel
at his trial.”
Right to Counsel - Misdemeanors
Scott v. Illinois
- States have no obligation
to provide counsel to
defendants facing
potential jail time - “Actual imprisonment . . .
Is essentially sound and
warrants adoption of
actual imprisonment as the
line defining the
constitutional right to
appointment of counsel”
Right to Counsel - Misdemeanors
Alabama v. Shelton ( 2002)
- can only sentence someone to suspended or probated imprisonment if he/she had a defense counsel
- Key point of analysis – executing the punishment goes back to the underlying offense/trial that was adjudicated absent an attorney
When Right to Counsel Begins?
Rothgery v. Gillespie County (2008)
- TX Probable Cause Hearing – PC determination made, bail set,
defendant appraised of the accusations against him
- Indicted 6 months later, a lawyer then assigned to him
Issue, Holding
- Issue: When does the right to counsel begin?
- Prior cases – right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversary
judicial criminal proceedings – whether by way of formal charge,
preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment - “the overwhelming consensus practice conforms to the rule that the
first formal proceedings is the point of attachment” - Holding:
- A criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate, where
he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to
restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that
trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
When Right to Counsel Ends?
Griffin v. Illinois
- Indigent defendants must be
provided trial transcripts at state
expense if necessary to
effectuate appellate review - Imposes an affirmative duty to
eliminate at least some
inequalities not of the state’s
own doing – level the playing
field
Douglas v. CA
right to counsel for first level
appeal
When Right to Counsel Ends?
Ross v. Moffitt
- What about discretionary appeals – state or federal supreme courts?
- Nope, no right to appointed counsel there
- In trial, defendant needs an attorney as a shield, but on appeal, needs an attorney as a sword to “upset that prior determination of guilt”
- Okay if states give this right, but not going to compel the states to do so
Massiah v. United States (1964)
issue, holding
Issue:
- Whether Massiah’s statement to Colson amounted to a lawful confession
Holding:
- No, Massiah’s statement was not lawful confession
- Once right to counsel attaches, can’t question a suspect until they actively waive his/her right to counsel
- Timing is key here: occurred after the right to an attorney (Gideon) had attached
Brewer v. Williams (1977)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether law enforcement violated Williams’ sixth amendment right to counsel with the “Christian burial speech
Holding:
- Yes, the Christian burial speech violated Williams’ sixth amendment right to counsel
- “There can be no serious doubt, either, that Detective Leaming deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from Williams just as surely as – and perhaps more effectively than – if he had formally interrogated him”
Brewer v. Williams (1977)
But didn’t Williams waive his right?
“but waiver requires not merely comprehension but relinquishment, and Williams’ consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel in dealing with the authorities refutes any suggested that he waived that right.”
Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986)
US v. Henry
- Applied Massiah to jailhouse informants
- There, the Court found jailhouse informant violated Massiah – conduct deliberately elicited an incriminating statement
So whats different here?
In Henry, “although the informant had not questioned the defendant, the informant had stimulated conversations with the defendant in order to elicit incriminating information”
Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986)
Maine v. Moulton
Held that Massiah applies even though government had other, legitimate reasons for intercepting defendant’s conversations
There, the police informant was asking questions – “the primary concern of the Massiah line of decisions is secret interrogation by investigatory techniques that are the equivalent of direct police interrogation”
Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986)
- Massiah requires that the police and informant
took some action, beyond listening that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks
- Here, informant did not ask questions and did nothing to stimulate conversation
