Right to Counsel and Coerced Confessions

Right to Counsel

Sixth Amend

• guarantees the accused “the assistance of counsel for his defense”

• NOT mandatory in all criminal cases

• “the right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel” (Johnson v. Zerbst)

Powell v. Alabama

• Scottsboro case

• declined to apply Sixth to state criminal courts

• Betts v. Brady interprets as “special circumstances” rules

  • require capital cases; bad judicial conduct; young, ignorant, or otherwise handicapped; legally complex

Gideon v. Wainwright

• right to counsel in all states for all criminal cases

Argersinger v. Hamlin

• all offenses involving possibility of imprisonment

Brady

• white gay “ordinary intelligence” capable of assisting his defense

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Vote: 7-2

Facts: Scottsboro trial. Ozie Powell and 8 other Black youths arrested, charged, and tried before all-white jury for raping two white women on a traveling train. Doctors testify no evidence of rape, case taken by Communist org. Each tried separately w/o counsel and sentenced to death Alabama Supreme affirm, appeal to SCOTUS.

Issue: Were defendants denied the right to counsel and does that infringe due process of the 14th?

Holding: Yes.

Opinion (J. Sutherland):

(1) Where the right to counsel is conceded, there needs to be a “fair opportunity” to secure counsel of their own choice. Counsel given so late that they were of no use.

(2) “In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable of adequately making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble-mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the Court to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of the due process of law.”

(3) “Special circumstances” in this case: young, illiterate, Black, away from home, charged w/ capital offense, hostile env—saying must appoint counsel under THESE facts (Betts v. Brady applied 10 yrs later).

Note: Retried three times, last Scottsboro boy released 1950.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Vote: 9-0

Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL. He requested counsel @ his trial and was denied. The Warren Court was looking for a case to overturn Betts, and this was the perfect one.

Issue: Should the Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?
Holding: Yes. Right to counsel of 6th FUNDAMENTAL.

Opinion (J. Black):

(1) BOR provisions that are “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” should be made bonding upon States.

(2) “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him”

(3) “From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantial safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant standing equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged w/ crime has to face his accusers w/o a lawyer to assist him.”

Note: lawyers are necessities—anyone w/ money to do so hires one. gov has NEVER been able to prohibit legal counsel; this is difference b/t right to counsel (always existed) and right to APPOINTED counsel (new development).

Full precedent:
- 1790s, Congress declares appointed counsel in capital cases

- 1930s, SC declares for fed cases

- Gideon extension to criminal cases were incarceration possible

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Vote: 6-3

Facts: 18 y/o girl raped and kidnapped in Phoenix, Arizona. She identified Ernesto A. Miranda as her attacker in a police lineup. Miranda confessed during interrogation, wrote out and signed brief admitting and describing his crime. His attorneys appealed on the grounds that Miranda’s confession had been coerced and that the police had violated his 5th Amend rights.

Issue: Does the admission of coerced self-incrimination during custodial interrogation as evidence violate the 5th?

Holding: Yes.

Opinion (J. Warren):

(1) Confessions coerced from man denied access to his lawyer and not informed of right to remain silent are not admissible in Court (Escobedo v. Illinois).

(2) “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evid against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” CANNOT use statements from custodial interrogation unless the person is given this info. Rights available @ all times during questioning.

(3) Police brutality and “third degree” violate Constitutional rights.

Concurring:

(1) We should continue to follow the “totality of circumstances” rule put forth in Escobedo and Hayes.

Dissent = Court should determine if statements were coerced or voluntary, totality argument.

Note: Don’t need to Mirandize UNTIL start asking questions in custodial interrogation. Can waive rights intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly. 5th gives right to remain silent and appointed counsel; Miranda says police have to inform of those rights.

Dickerson v. US (2000)

Vote: 7-2

Facts: Congress enacted the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to apply the “totality of circumstances” rule in federal courts, not Miranda. The DOJ has held that Miranda applies in fed courts. Thomas Dickerson was arrested and convicted of bank robbery. His attorney tried to suppress interrogation evid b/c Dickerson was not read his Miranda rights. Trial court said Miranda prevailed, Fourth Circuit says Congress, SCOTUS grants review.

Issue: Can Miranda be overruled by an Act of Congress?

Holding: No.

Opinion:

(1) Because Miranda is a constitutional decision, Congress may not supersede.

(2) “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”

Dissent:

(1) Congress should rule here b/c Miranda is not required by the Constitution.

(2) Miranda prevents foolishness rather than compelled confessions, which is an overstep.

Note: If truly embedded popular culture, why do police need to inform?