Cases by Issue - Appointment of Counsel

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Johnson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

531 MISC

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 565 (1957)

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None