Cases by Issue - Indigents

Halbert v. Michigan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-10198

Petitioner

Antonio Dwayne Halbert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michigan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Friday, January 7, 2005

Argued

Monday, April 25, 2005

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Advocates

David A. Moran (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Bernard E. Restuccia (argued the cause for Respondent)

Gene C. Schaerr (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Halbert pleaded no contest in a Michigan court to two counts of criminal sexual conduct. The day after Halbert's sentence was imposed, Halbert moved to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion and told Halbert the property remedy for his complaint was the state appellate court. Michigan required a defendant convicted on a guilty or no contest plea to apply for leave of appeal to the state appellate court. Halbert asked the trial court twice to appoint counsel to help him with his application. The trial court refused. Without counsel, Halbert still applied for leave to appeal, which the court of appeals denied. The state supreme court also denied Halbert's application for leave to appeal to that court.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Halbert, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

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.

Smith v. Robbins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1037

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 259 (2000)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1999

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 2000

Advocates

Ronald J. Nessim (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Carol F. Jorstad (Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A California state-court jury convicted Lee Robbins of second degree murder and grand theft auto. After the trial, in which Robbins defended himself, his appointed counsel on appeal concluded that an appeal would be frivolous. Under a new California procedure, established in People v. Wende, Robbins' counsel then filed with the California Court of Appeal to allow him to withdraw or to let the court dispose of the case by filing a brief that was silent on the merits of the case and offered to brief issues at the court's direction. The court affirmed and, after Robbins appealed his own case, the California Supreme Court denied review. After exhausting his state post-conviction remedies, Robbins sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing that he had been denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. The Federal District Court granted Robbins' petition and concluded that his counsel failed to meet even the minimum duty to further a client's case after determining that his appeal was without merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider other trial errors raised by Robbins.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Smith, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.

Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1188

Petitioner

Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 194 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

James Ching (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles D. Weisselberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rowland, Former Director, California Department Of Corrections, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California v. Hernandez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1846

Petitioner

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hernandez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 25 (1992)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

James Ching (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard W. Nichols (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Murray v. Giarratano

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-411

Petitioner

Murray

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Giarratano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 1 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

Gerald T. Zerkin (on behalf of the respondents)

Robert Q. Harris (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Murray, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Mallard v. United States District Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1490

Petitioner

Mallard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 296 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1989

Advocates

John E. Mallard (on behalf of Petitioner)

Gordon E. Allen (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mallard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Neitzke v. Williams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1882

Petitioner

Neitzke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 319 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, February 22, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1989

Advocates

George A. Rutherglen (on behalf of Respondent)

Robert S. Spear (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Penson v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6116

Petitioner

Penson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 75 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, October 12, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

Advocates

Mark B. Robinette (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gregory L. Ayers (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Penson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mccoy v. Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5002

Appellee

Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mccoy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 429 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Louis Bennett Butler, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stephen W. Kleinmaier (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Court Of Appeals Of Wisconsin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Pennsylvania v. Finley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2099

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 551 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1987

Advocates

Gaele M. Barthold (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Catherine M. Harper (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennsylvania, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Ake v. Oklahoma

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-5424

Petitioner

Ake

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 68 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Michael C. Turpen (on behalf of the respondent)

Arthur B. Spitzerm (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ake, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Bearden v. Georgia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-6633

Petitioner

Bearden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 660 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 24, 1983

Advocates

James H. Lohr (appointed by this Court, pro hac vice)

George M. Weaver ()

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bearden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Little v. Streater

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6779

Appellee

Streater

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Little

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 1 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Jon C. Blue (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stephen J. McGovern (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Little, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Wood v. Georgia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6027

Petitioner

Wood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 261 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Advocates

Glenn Zell (on behalf of the Petitioners;)

John W. Dunsmore, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wood, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Holloway v. Arkansas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5856

Petitioner

Holloway

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 475 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1977

Decided

Monday, April 3, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Holloway, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

United States v. Maccollom

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1487

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maccollom

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 317 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 10, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Ross v. Moffitt

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-786

Petitioner

Ross

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moffitt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 600 (1974)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ross, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Fuller v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5280

Petitioner

Fuller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 40 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oregon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Kras

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-749

Appellee

Kras

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 434 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Huffman v. Boersen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5097

Petitioner

Huffman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boersen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 337 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Huffman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

James v. Strange

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-11

Appellee

Strange

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

James

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 128 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Strange, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mayer v. City Of Chicago

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5040

Appellee

City Of Chicago

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mayer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 189 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mayer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Britt v. North Carolina

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5041

Petitioner

Britt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 226 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for North Carolina, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Schilb v. Kuebel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-90

Appellee

Kuebel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schilb

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 357 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Kuebel, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Tate v. Short

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

324

Petitioner

Tate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Short

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 395 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, January 14, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tate, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Williams v. Illinois

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1089

Appellee

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Williams

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 235 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Morris v. Schoonfield

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

782

Appellee

Schoonfield

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Morris

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 508 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Morris, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Boddie v. Connecticut

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:04 +0000

Location

New Haven County Superior Court

121 Elm Street New Haven CT 06510

New Haven, CT 06510

United States

41° 18' 30.3624" N, 72° 55' 27.9984" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Gladys Boddie et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Connecticut

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 371 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, November 17, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Advocates

Arthur B. LaFrance (reargued the cause for the appellants)

Raymond J. Cannon (reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Gladys Boddie was a married resident of Connecticut receiving welfare benefits. She filed for a divorce in New Haven County Superior Court. However, Boddie was not given a hearing because she had not paid the filing fee under Section 52-259 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Given her welfare status, she was unable to pay the fee. Her requests for fee waivers were also denied. Boddie and others who were denied divorces under Section 52-259 challenged the fee requirement in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. They alleged that the fee requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court upheld the requirement. Boddie appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Connecticut's fee requirement for divorce filings violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boddie, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the District Court and held the fee requirement unconstitutional. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court recognized the importance of "access to the courts" for Boddie, as state court was the only method of obtaining a divorce in Connecticut. While the Court acknowledged Connecticut's interest in conserving limited resources and preventing "frivolous litigation," this interest was not a "sufficient countervailing justification." Therefore, Connecticut's refusal to allow Boddie to proceed with her divorce was "a denial of due process" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the result. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. concurred in part.

Wade v. Wilson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wade

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wilson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 282 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Wade, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Williams v. Oklahoma City

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

841

Petitioner

Williams

Respondent

Oklahoma City

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 458 (1969)

Argued

April 1-2, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Gardner v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 367 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gardner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Johnson v. Avery

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Avery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 483 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Entsminger v. State Of Iowa

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

252

Petitioner

Entsminger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Of Iowa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 748 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, March 15, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Entsminger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Anders v. State Of Cal.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Anders

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Of Cal.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Anders, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Nowakowski v. Maroney

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

222

Petitioner

Nowakowski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maroney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 542 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nowakowski, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Long v. District Court Of Iowa

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Long

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

District Court Of Iowa

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 192 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 5, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Long, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Rinaldi v. Yeager

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

940

Appellee

Yeager

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rinaldi

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 305 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 21, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rinaldi, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Hardy v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

112

Petitioner

Hardy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 277 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hardy, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Norvell v. Illinois

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

513

Petitioner

Norvell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 420 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Illinois, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Draper v. Washington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

201

Petitioner

Draper

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 487 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1963

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Draper, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Lane v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

283

Petitioner

Lane

Respondent

Brown

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 477 (1963)

Argued

January 16-17, 1963

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Douglas v. California

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:59 +0000

Location

Labor Union Protest

200 Shoreline Highway Mill Valley CA 94941

Mill Valley, CA 94941

United States

37° 52' 48.2664" N, 122° 31' 23.6424" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Douglas

Respondent

California

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 353 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1962

Reargued:

Wednesday, January 16, 1963

Decided

Monday, March 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Douglas, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Coppedge v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

157

Petitioner

Coppedge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 438 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Coppedge, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Smith v. Bennett

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

174

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bennett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 177

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 708 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Burns v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

581

Petitioner

Burns

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 252 (1959)

Argued

Monday, May 18, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burns, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Eskridge v. Washington Prison Bd.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Eskridge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Prison Bd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 214 (1958)

Argued

Monday, May 19, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Eskridge, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Griffin v. Illinois

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:57 +0000

Location

Attorney General of the State of Illinois

160 North LaSalle Street Chicago IL 60601

Chicago, IL 60601

United States

41° 53' 5.3016" N, 87° 37' 58.0224" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Judson Griffin and James Crenshaw

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 12 (1956)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1955

Decided

Monday, April 23, 1956

Advocates

Charles A. Horsky (argued the cause for the petitioners)

William C. Wines (Attorney General of Illinois. argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Judson Griffin and James Crenshaw were indicted for armed robbery in Cook County, Illinois. Following their conviction, in preparation for filling for an appeal, Griffin and Crenshaw requested a transcript of their trial proceedings without cost, on the basis that they could not afford the standard fee for the transcript. The lower court dismissed the petition without hearing evidence.

Question

Did requiring Griffin and Crenshaw to pay a fee with their request for a transcript of their trial proceedings violate their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Griffin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court reasoned that there is "no meaningful distinction" between denying indigent defendants the right to appeal and denying them a trial. Because Illinois conceded that Griffin and Crenshaw could not file for appeal without a transcript, the Court found that their rights to due process and equal protection had been denied.

Betts v. Brady

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:49 +0000

Location

Circuit Court for Carroll County

55 N. Court Street Westminster MD 21157

Westminster, MD 21157

United States

39° 34' 14.9016" N, 76° 59' 15.7308" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

837

Petitioner

Betts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brady

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1941-1942)

Decided By

Stone Court (1941-1942)

Opinion

316 U.S. 455 (1942)

Granted

Monday, February 16, 1942

Argued

April 13-14, 1942

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1942

Advocates

Jesse Slingluff Jr. (argued the cause for the petitioner)

G. Van Velsor Wolf (argued the cause for the petitioner)

William C. Walsh (Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert E. Clapp Jr. (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Betts was indicted for robbery in Maryland. An indigent, he was unable to afford counsel and requested one be appointed for him. The judge in the case denied the request, and Betts subsequently pled not guilty while maintaining he had a right to counsel and arguing his own defense.

Question

Does denying a request for counsel for an indigent defendant violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which embraces the defendant's right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court ruled that the previously discovered right to counsel provided by the fourteenth amendment does not compel states to provide counsel to any defendant. Justice Owen Roberts' opinion asserted that the right to counsel merely prevented the state from interfering in a defendant’s request for representation rather than requiring a state to offer counsel.

Judd v. United States District Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-5260

Petitioner

Judd

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 5 (1999)

Decided

Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Facts of the Case

Pro se petitioner Keith Russell Judd sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 39 with respect to a petition for certiorari. In May 1995, the Court had invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Judd in forma pauperis status with respect to a petition for an extraordinary writ. Before the 39.8 denial, Judd had filed six petitions for certiorari. After the 39.8 denial, Judd filed four petitions for certiorari. All eleven of Judd's previous petitions were deemed frivolous by the Court and denied without recorded dissent.

Question

May pro se petitioner Keith Russell Judd be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Supreme Court Rule 39?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States District Court, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court denied Judd's request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Noting that Judd had abused the Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes, the Court directed the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or petitions for extraordinary writs from Judd in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1. "The order," the opinion concluded, "will not prevent Judd from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Ortwein v. Schwab

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5431

Appellee

Schwab

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ortwein

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 656 (1973)

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schwab, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None