http://www.oyez.org/issues/civil-rights/indigents-appointment-counsel/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_98/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_34/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_252/ <p>Did the due process and equal protection clauses require the appointment of counsel for defendants, convicted on their pleas, who sought access to a Michigan appellate court?</p><p>Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the due process and equal protection clauses required Michigan to provide counsel for defendants who wanted to appeal to the state appellate court. The Court reasoned that if indigent defendants convicted on their pleas did not have counsel to guide them through Michigan's complex appellate process, their right to appeal would not be meaningful.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_10198/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_531_misc/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1490/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_411/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_2099/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_786/ <p>Does California's no-merit brief procedure, in which defense counsel has concluded that an appeal would be frivolous, violate a defendant's right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel?</p><p>No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that "States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant's right to appellate counsel," as does California's procedure. Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that California's procedure "reasonably ensures that an indigent's appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses as a matter of policy, we cannot say that it fails to afford indigents the adequate and effective appellate review that the Fourteenth Amendment requires." The dissenting minority collectively noted that California's procedures allowed attorneys to remain too passive.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1037/