IEJS > Law > Procedure > Right to Counsel

Leading Cases on the Right to Counsel

• GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
  "The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 , overruled."
   
• GRIFFIN v. ILLINOIS, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
  "...there were manifest nonconstitutional errors in the trial which entitled them to have their convictions set aside on appeal, that the only impediment to full appellate review was their lack of funds to buy a transcript, and that refusal to afford full appellate review solely because of their poverty was a denial of due process and equal protection."
   
• POWELL v. STATE OF ALA., 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
  "The United States by statute and every state in the Union by express provision of law, or by the determination of its courts, make it the duty of the trial judge, where the accused is unable to employ counsel, to appoint counsel for him. In most states the rule applies broadly to all criminal prosecutions, in others it is limited to the more serious crimes, and in a very limited number, to capital cases. A rule adopted with such unanimous accord reflects, if it does not establish the inherent right to have counsel appointed at least in cases like the present, and lends convincing support to the conclusion we have reached as to the fundamental nature of that right."
   
• JOHNSON v. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)
  "If-on remand-the District Court finds from all of the evidence that petitioner has sustained the burden of proof resting upon him and that he did not competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel, it will follow that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to proceed to judgment and conviction of petitioner, and he will therefore be entitled to have his petition granted."
   
• BETTS v. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
  [Overruled.  See Gideon above.]  "As we have said, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right, and while want of counsel in a particular case may result in a conviction lacking in such fundamental fairness, we cannot say that the amendment embodies an inexorable command that no trial for any offense, or in any court, can be fairly conducted and justice accorded a defendant who is not represented by counsel."
   
• ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
  No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel. In this case, the Supreme Court of Florida erred in holding that petitioner, an indigent who was tried for an offense punishable by imprisonment up to six months, a $1,000 fine, or both, and given a 90-day jail sentence, had no right to court-appointed counsel, on the ground that the right extends only to trials "for non-petty offenses punishable by more than six months imprisonment."
   
• MORRIS v. SLAPPY, 461 U.S. 1 (1983)
  "Here, in the face of an unequivocal and uncontradicted statement by a responsible officer of the court that he was fully prepared and "ready" for trial, it was far from an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance."
   
• DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)
  "Where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has as of right are decided without benefit of counsel in a state criminal case, there has been a discrimination between the rich and the poor which violates the Fourteenth Amendment."
   
• ROSS v. MOFFITT, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)
  "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require North Carolina to provide respondent with counsel on his discretionary appeal to the State Supreme Court."
   
• AKE v. OKLAHOMA, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
  "When a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one."
   
• FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
  "The Sixth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth guarantees that a defendant in a state criminal trial has an independent constitutional right of self-representation and that he may proceed to defend himself without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so; and in this case the state courts erred in forcing petitioner against his will to accept a state-appointed public defender and in denying his request to conduct his own defense."
   
• McKASKLE v. WIGGINS, 465 U.S. 168 (1984)
  "Respondent's Sixth Amendment right to conduct his own defense was not violated, since it appears that he was allowed to make his own appearances as he saw fit and that his standby counsel's unsolicited involvement was held within reasonable limits."
   
• PATTERSON v. ILLINOIS, 487 U.S. 285 (1988)
  "...once an accused "knowingly and intelligently" elects to proceed without counsel, the uncounseled statements he then makes need not be excluded at trial."
   
• STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
  "The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result."
   
• CUYLER v. SULLIVAN, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)
  "The Court of Appeals did not exceed the proper scope of review when it rejected the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's conclusion that the two lawyers had not undertaken multiple representation."
   
• HOLLOWAY v. ARKANSAS, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)
  The trial judge's failure either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk of a conflict of interests was too remote to warrant separate counsel, in the face of the representations made by counsel before trial and again before the jury was empanelled, deprived petitioners of the guarantee of "assistance of counsel" under the Sixth Amendment.
   
• KIRBY v. ILLINOIS, 406 U.S. 682 (1972)
  The Supreme Court upheld "the appellate court holding that the per se exclusionary rule of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , did not apply to pre-indictment confrontations."
   
• UNITED STATES v. GOUVEIA, 467 U.S. 180 (1984)
  "Respondents were not constitutionally entitled to the appointment of counsel while they were in administrative segregation and before any adversary judicial proceedings had been initiated against them."

This page available at: