SCOTT v. ILLINOIS

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
77-1177
Petitioner 
Scott
Respondent 
Illinois
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
(Argued the cause for respondent)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail.

Question 

Did the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

A plurality held that Illinois had not violated the Constitution. Writing for four of the justices, Rehnquist clarified the Court's holding in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and argued that states could only sentence a convicted criminal to imprisonment if that person had been represented by counsel. Since Scott was not sentenced to imprisonment, even though the applicable statute allowed for it, the state was not obligated to provide counsel. Rehnquist called that line of reasoning "the central premise of Argersinger."

Cite this Page
SCOTT v. ILLINOIS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 21 October 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1177>.
SCOTT v. ILLINOIS, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1177 (last visited October 21, 2014).
"SCOTT v. ILLINOIS," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed October 21, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1177.