Right to counsel Flashcards
Betts v. Brady
Facts
Betts was indicted for robbery in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Maryland. Due to his inability to afford counsel, Betts requested the court to appoint one for him. The judge denied this request, stating that it was not the practice in Carroll County to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in cases of murder and rape. Betts, without waiving his right to counsel, pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried without a jury. He cross-examined the State’s witnesses and presented his own witnesses to establish an alibi but chose not to testify himself. The judge found Betts guilty and sentenced him to eight years in prison. While serving his sentence, Betts filed for habeas corpus, claiming he was deprived of the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. His petition was denied at both the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals of Maryland levels.
Issue
The key legal question was whether the refusal to appoint counsel for Betts, an indigent defendant charged with robbery, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the refusal to appoint counsel did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to provide counsel to indigent defendants in all criminal cases.
Gideon v Wainwright
Facts
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with felony breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, Gideon requested the court appoint counsel for him. The court denied this request, citing Florida law which only permitted court-appointed counsel for defendants in capital offenses. Gideon represented himself at trial and was convicted, then sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, claiming his conviction violated his constitutional rights because the trial court refused to appoint counsel for him. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider the holding in Betts v. Brady, which had previously established that the right to appointed counsel was not a fundamental right guaranteed to defendants in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue
The issue before the Court was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, guaranteed for defendants in federal criminal trials, extends to defendants in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, thereby requiring states to provide counsel for indigent defendants charged with felonies.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, is required by the Fourteenth Amendment to be made available to defendants in state courts who cannot afford to hire a lawyer
Scott v. Illinois
Facts
In Scott v. Illinois, the petitioner, Scott, was convicted of shoplifting merchandise valued under $150 and was fined $50 after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The maximum penalty under the relevant Illinois statute for such an offense could include a $500 fine or up to one year in jail, or both. Scott appealed his conviction up to the Supreme Court of Illinois, arguing that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution required the state to provide him with trial counsel at its expense, as imprisonment was an authorized penalty for the offense, even though it was not imposed.
Issue
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the state must provide counsel to an indigent defendant who is charged with a crime for which imprisonment is an authorized penalty but is not actually imposed. This issue addresses the application of the precedent set in Argersinger v. Hamlin, which requires the provision of counsel when imprisonment is imposed, to a situation where imprisonment could have been but was not imposed.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not require a state to appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants in misdemeanor cases where imprisonment is authorized but not imposed. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois affirming Scott’s conviction without appointed counsel was upheld.
Reasoning
Strickland v. Washington
Facts
During a 10-day period in September 1976, David Washington committed a series of violent crimes, including three stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft.
After his accomplices were arrested, Washington surrendered to the police and confessed. He was indicted for kidnapping and murder, among other charges, and was appointed an experienced criminal lawyer. Washington pleaded guilty to all charges, including the capital murder charges, against his lawyer’s advice.
At the sentencing hearing, his counsel did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination, judging that evidence concerning Washington’s character and emotional state would not overcome the evidentiary effect of his confessions. The trial judge found several aggravating circumstances and sentenced Washington to death for each of the three counts of murder.
Issue
The central issue in this case is whether a criminal defendant’s conviction or death sentence must be set aside due to the Constitution’s requirement that counsel’s assistance at trial or sentencing be effective. Specifically, the case addresses the standards for judging a defendant’s claim that their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial or a fair sentencing proceeding. The Court found that Washington failed to meet both prongs of this test and therefore affirmed the denial of his claim.
Padilla v. Kentucky
Facts
Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras and a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faced deportation after pleading guilty to drug trafficking charges in Kentucky. Padilla, who had served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War, was advised by his counsel that he did not need to worry about immigration consequences due to his long residency in the U.S. This advice turned out to be incorrect, as his conviction made him subject to automatic deportation under U.S. immigration law. Padilla claimed that he would have insisted on going to trial had he been properly informed about the deportation risks associated with his guilty plea.
Issue
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, as a matter of federal law, Padilla’s counsel had an obligation to inform him that his guilty plea would result in deportation from the United States. The case centered on whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel extends to advice regarding the deportation consequences of a guilty plea.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that counsel must inform a client whether a plea carries a risk of deportation, marking a departure from the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s decision. The Court concluded that constitutionally competent counsel would have advised Padilla that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. The decision underscored that deportation is an integral part—sometimes the most important part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes
