Also known as: right to counsel · assistance of counsel · right to legal counsel · Sixth Amendment right to counsel · Gideon right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for defense. The right attaches at the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings and extends to critical stages of the prosecution.
Lena appeared in municipal court believing the sidewalk citation was an administrative matter. The judge conducted a bench trial on the criminal infraction and entered a conviction without advising her of the charges or offering time to obtain counsel. The proceeding violated her right because the court held a criminal prosecution without counsel or a valid waiver.
After Melanie clearly invoked her right to counsel during custodial questioning, a different detective visited her in jail the next day and obtained a second confession without providing counsel. The reinitiation violated the right because police may not resume interrogation about the offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication.
Warren's appointed defender never interviewed technicians or obtained work-order logs that could have shown others accessed the rebate system. The omissions so undermined the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied upon to have produced a just result.
Detectives showed Gene a single company photo of Betty two days after the server intrusion. Because photo identifications are not a critical stage, Betty had no right to counsel at the procedure even though she had already been indicted.
Warren insisted his public defender present testimony he knew was false about the rebate applications. Counsel refused to cooperate and threatened to disclose the perjury to the court. The refusal did not violate the right to effective assistance because counsel has no duty to assist in committing perjury.
Gideon was charged with a felony in state court and could not afford a lawyer. The trial court refused to appoint counsel and Gideon was convicted after representing himself. The conviction violated the right because indigent defendants facing felony charges are entitled to appointed counsel.
Petitioner Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, Gideon asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court denied the request, stating that under the laws of the State of Florida the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition. The petition attacked his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court’s refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government. Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, upon consideration thereof but without an opinion, denied all relief. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady was decided by a divided Court, the problem of a defendant’s federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. To give this problem another review here, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments whether this Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady should be reconsidered.
View caseThe right attaches upon the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings such as indictment or arraignment. Once attached it applies at all critical stages of the prosecution.
Supporting sources
No. Photo arrays are not a critical stage requiring counsel even after indictment although the procedure may still be challenged on due process grounds if unnecessarily suggestive.
Supporting sources
Counsel must first attempt to dissuade the client then consider withdrawal and if necessary disclose the perjury as a reasonable remedial measure. Refusing to cooperate does not violate the right to effective assistance.
Supporting sources
No. Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the Miranda right to counsel police must cease interrogation and may not reinitiate questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication.
Supporting sources
Effective assistance is presumed unless counsel's conduct so undermines the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon to have produced a just result. Specific errors rather than general factors such as inexperience must usually be shown.
Supporting sources
…. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel"—rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in…