The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Right to Counsel Arguments

Alabama v. Shelton - Oral Argument

Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Lereed Shelton represented himself in an Alabama Circuit Court criminal trial. The court warned Shelton about the difficulties that self-representation entailed, but at no time offered him assistance of counsel at state expense. Ultimately, Shelton was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to a 30-day jail term, which the trial court suspended, placing Shelton on two years' unsupervised probation. Shelton appealed on Sixth Amendment grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed Shelton's suspended jail sentence, reasoning that U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, require provision of counsel in any petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony prosecution, "that actually leads to imprisonment even for a brief period." The court concluded that, because a defendant may not be imprisoned absent provision of counsel, Shelton's suspended sentence could never be activated and was therefore invalid.

Argersinger v. Hamlin - Oral Argument

Mon, 06 Dec 1971 12:00:00 -0500

Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney.

Argersinger v. Hamlin - Oral Reargument

Mon, 28 Feb 1972 12:00:00 -0500

Brewer v. Williams - Oral Argument

Mon, 04 Oct 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Burger v. Kemp - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Escobedo v. Illinois - Oral Argument

Wed, 29 Apr 1964 12:00:00 -0500

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.

Evitts v. Lucey - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Oct 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Fellers v. United States - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:00:00 -0500

After a grand jury indicted Fellers, police arrested him at home. Fellers made incriminating statements during the arrest. Police officially interrogated Fellers at county jail and told him of his Miranda rights. Fellers signed a waiver of these rights and restated incriminating statements he had made at home. Fellers later argued that, when he was arrested in his home without a lawyer, police "deliberately elicited" incriminating statements. Pointing to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Fellers argued it would be unconstitutional to admit at trial his incriminating statements made in jail, because these were the "fruits" of comments made at home without a lawyer.

Fellers was convicted in federal district court. A federal appellate court affirmed the conviction and ruled that officers did not violate Fellers' Sixth Amendment right to counsel either at home or in the jailhouse.

Florida v. Nixon - Oral Argument

Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:00:00 -0500

A Florida court convicted Joe Elton Nixon of murder and sentenced him to death. During the trial Nixon's lawyer told the jury Nixon was guilty. Nixon appealed and argued he received ineffective counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Nixon said he did not agree to the lawyer's strategy. After several appeals the Florida Supreme Court granted Nixon a new trial. The court said Nixon's lawyer's comments were essentially a guilty plea and that because Nixon did not explicitly agree to the strategy, the lawyer was "per se ineffective."

Geders v. United States - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Gideon v. Wainwright - Oral Argument

Tue, 15 Jan 1963 12:00:00 -0500

Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.

Glover v. United States - Oral Argument

Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:00 -0500

In the 1980's and early 1990's, Paul Glover was the Vice President and General Counsel of the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, and Warehouse Workers Union. Ultimately, Glover was convicted of federal labor racketeering, money laundering, and tax evasion, among other things, after using his control over the union's investments to enrich himself through kickbacks. Glover's probation officer, in his pre-sentence investigation report, recommended that Glover's federal labor racketeering, money laundering, and tax evasion convictions be grouped under the United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines Manual section 3D1.2, which allows the grouping of counts involving substantially the same harm. The Federal Government objected to the grouping and the District Court agreed. Glover's offense level was thus increased by two levels, resulting in an increased sentence of between 6 and 21 months. Glover's counsel did not pursue the grouping issue on appeal. Glover then filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his counsel's failure to pursue the issue was ineffective assistance, without which his offense level would have been lower. The District Court denied Glover's motion, concluding that a 6 to 21 month sentencing increase was not significant enough to establish prejudice under the test for ineffective assistance of counsel articulated in Strickland v. Washington. Thus, the court denied his ineffective-assistance claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Iowa v. Tovar - Oral Argument

Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Felipe E. Tovar was charged with drunk-driving in Iowa three times in four years. Tovar pleaded guilty both times and waived his right to an attorney the first time. The third time, because Iowa law increases sentencing for successive drunk-driving, Tovar faced up to five years in prison. Tovar argued that his first conviction was an invalid waiver of his 6th Amendment right to counsel and should not increase his third sentence. The waiver was invalid, Tovar argued, because the judge did not warn him of the consequences of entering a guilty plea without an attorney. The Iowa district court rejected Tovar's argument and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The court of appeals affirmed. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed.

Jones v. Barnes - Oral Argument

Tue, 22 Feb 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Kimmelman v. Morrison - Oral Argument

Wed, 05 Mar 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Kuhlmann v. Wilson - Oral Argument

Tue, 14 Jan 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Lassiter v. Department Of Social Services - Oral Argument

Mon, 23 Feb 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department Of Correction v. Fretwell - Oral Argument

Tue, 03 Nov 1992 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Maine v. Moulton - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Oct 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Martinez v. Court of Appeals of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. - Oral Argument

Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Salvador Martinez, a self-described self-taught paralegal with 25 years of experience at 12 different law firms, was working for a Santa Ana, California law firm when a client gave him $6,000.00 to bail her boyfriend out of jail. The bail was never posted and Martinez was subsequently charged with grand theft and the fraudulent appropriation of the property of another. Martinez chose to represent himself at trial before a jury, which acquitted him of theft, but convicted him of embezzlement. Martinez then filed a timely notice of appeal, a motion to represent himself, and a waiver of counsel. The motion to represent himself was denied by the California Court of Appeal. The court explained: "There is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal as of right. The right to counsel on appeal stems from the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, not from the Sixth Amendment....The denial of self-representation at this level does not violate due process or equal protection guarantees."

Mckaskle v. Wiggins - Oral Argument

Wed, 09 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Mcneil v. Wisconsin - Oral Argument

Tue, 26 Feb 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Michigan v. Harvey - Oral Argument

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Michigan v. Jackson - Oral Argument

Mon, 09 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Mickens v. Taylor - Oral Argument

Mon, 05 Nov 2001 12:00:00 -0500

A Virginia jury convicted Walter Mickens, Jr., of the premeditated murder of Timothy Hall during or following the commission of an attempted forcible sodomy and sentenced him to death. Subsequently, Mickens filed a federal habeas petition, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because one of his court-appointed attorneys had a conflict of interest at trial - his lead attorney, Bryan Saunders, had represented Hall on criminal charges at the time of the murder. Saunders had not disclosed to the court, his co-counsel, or Mickens that he had represented Hall. Ultimately, the en banc Court of Appeals rejected MIckens's argument that the juvenile court judge's failure to inquire into a potential conflict either mandated automatic reversal of his conviction or relieved him of the burden of showing that a conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. Subsequently, the appellate court concluded that Mickens had not demonstrated adverse effect.

Middendorf v. Henry - Oral Reargument

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Morris v. Slappy - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Dec 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Nichols v. United States - Oral Argument

Mon, 10 Jan 1994 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Nix v. Whiteside - Oral Argument

Tue, 05 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Nix v. Williams - Oral Argument

Wed, 18 Jan 1984 12:00:00 -0500

Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.

Patterson v. Illinois - Oral Argument

Tue, 22 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Perry v. Leeke - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Roe v. Flores-Ortega - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Lucio Flores-Ortega, who does not speak English fluently, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. At his sentencing, the trial judge advised him that he had 60 days to file an appeal. His counsel, a public defender, did not file a notice of appeal in the period set by the court even though her file contained the words "bring appeal papers." Flores-Ortega's subsequent attempt to file such notice was rejected as untimely. Flores-Ortega's efforts to secure state habeas corpus relief were unsuccessful. Represented by a federal defender, Flores-Ortega then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, alleging constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel based his counsel's failure to file the notice after promising to do so. The District Court denied relief. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that Flores-Ortega was entitled to relief because, under its precedent, a habeas petitioner need only show that his counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal was without the petitioner's consent.

Rompilla v. Beard - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:00:00 -0500

A Pennsylvania court convicted Ronald Rompilla of murder. During the sentencing phase, the prosecution presented to the jury Rompilla's previous rape and assault conviction, as an aggravating factor to justify the death sentence. The jury sentenced Rompilla to death and the state supreme court affirmed. Rompilla's new lawyers filed an additional appeal, arguing that Rompilla's trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence about his various personal problems. The state courts found that Rompilla's counsel had sufficiently investigated mitigation possibilities. After Rompilla filed a federal habeas petition, a district court reversed the sentence and ruled the state supreme court had unreasonably applied the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Strickland v. Washington. Had the state court followed that case, the district court ruled, the court would have found Rompilla's trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate obvious signs of Rompilla's troubled childhood, mental illness and alcoholism. The Third Circuit reversed.

Satterwhite v. Texas - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Dec 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Scott v. Illinois - Oral Argument

Mon, 04 Dec 1978 12:00:00 -0500

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.

Strickland v. Washington - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Jan 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Texas v. Cobb - Oral Argument

Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:00:00 -0500

In 1994, while under arrest for an unrelated offense, Raymond Levi Cobb confessed to a home burglary. Cobb, however, denied knowledge of the disappearance of a woman and child from the home. In 1995, after counsel was appointed to represent him in the burglary case, Cobb confessed to killing the woman and child to his father, who contacted the police. Cobb, now in custody, waived his rights under Miranda and confessed to the murders. Cobb was then indicted, convicted, and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Cobb argued that his confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which he claimed attached when counsel was appointed in the burglary case. In reversing, the court held that once the right to counsel attaches to the offense charged, it also attaches to any other offense that is very closely factually related to the offense charged.

United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Oral Argument

Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Abel Martinez-Salazar was charged with a variety of federal narcotics and weapons offenses. The District Court allotted him 10 peremptory challenges exercisable in the selection of 12 jurors. After prospective juror Don Gilbert indicated several times that he would favor the prosecution, Martinez-Salazar's counsel challenged him for cause. The court declined to excuse Gilbert. After twice objecting, unsuccessfully, to the for-cause ruling, Martinez-Salazar used a peremptory challenge to remove him. Subsequently, Martinez-Salazar exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. Thereafter, Martinez-Salazar's counsel did not object to the final seating of the jurors. Martinez-Salazar was then convicted on all counts. On appeal, Martinez-Salazar argued that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to strike Gilbert for cause and that this error used one of his peremptory challenges wrongly. The Court of Appeals agreed that the District Court's refusal to strike Gilbert for cause was an abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court found that the District Court's error resulted in a violation of Martinez-Salazar's Fifth Amendment due process rights because it forced him to use a peremptory challenge curatively, which impaired his right to a full complement of peremptory challenges. The Court of Appeals held that the error required an automatic reversal.

United States v. Cronic - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Jan 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:00:00 -0500

Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez hired Joseph Low, an attorney, to represent him in a federal criminal trial. The district court judge refused to allow Low to represent Gonzalez-Lopez, however, because the judge ruled that Low had violated a court rule in a previous case. Gonzalez-Lopez was subsequently convicted. On appeal, he argued that his Sixth Amendment right to paid counsel of his own choosing had been violated and that the conviction should therefore be overturned. The Eighth Circuit agreed, holding that the trial judge had misinterpreted the court rule and that Low's conduct had been acceptable under a proper understanding of the rule. The decision to not allow him to represent Gonzalez-Lopez was therefore wrong, and resulted in a violation of Gonzalez-Lopez's Sixth Amendment rights significant enough to warrant overturning the conviction.

United States v. Gouveia - Oral Argument

Tue, 20 Mar 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Monsanto - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Morrison - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Dec 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wheat v. United States - Oral Argument

Wed, 02 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wiggins v. Smith - Oral Argument

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:00:00 -0500

Kevin Wiggins was convicted and sentenced to death for a 1988 murder. He appealed, claiming that his attorney's decision not to tell jurors about Wiggins' troubled childhood amounted to ineffective counsel because it resulted in a harsher sentence. Prosecutors countered that the attorney's decision had been carefully considered, and that a different decision would not necessarily have resulted in a different outcome. Therefore, they said, it was not ineffective counsel. A Maryland district court sided with Wiggins; the Maryland Supreme Court reversed, siding with the state. On appeal to federal court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling for Maryland.