Bruce S. Rogow, Coral Gables, Fla., for the petitioner. Note, Dollars and Sense of an Expanded Right to Counsel, 55 Iowa L.Rev. The thrust of the Court's position indicates, however, that when the decision must be made, the rule will be extended to all petty-offense cases except perhaps the most minor traffic violations. But the conviction was reversed. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which DOUGLAS and STEWART, JJ., joined, post, p. 407 U. S. 40.
Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. American Civil Liberties Union, Legal Counsel for Misdemeanants, Preliminary Report 1 (1970). It should be noted that the standard does not recommend a determination of the need for counsel in terms of the facts of each particular case; it draws a categorical line at those types of offenses for which incarceration as a punishment is a practical possibility.' Statement of the facts: A Florida state law for carrying a concealed weapon included a sentence for up to six months in jail. It seems to me that such an individualized rule, unlike a six-month rule and the majority's rule, does not present equal protection problems under this Court's decisions in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956); Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); and Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U. S. 189 (1971). He was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail, and brought this habeas corpus action in the Florida Supreme Court, alleging that, being deprived of his right to counsel, he was unable as an indigent layman properly to raise and present to the trial court good and sufficient defenses to the charge for which he stands convicted. We need not consider the requirements of the Sixth Amendment as regards the right to counsel where loss of liberty is not involved, however, for here petitioner was in fact sentenced to jail. It should be noted that the standard does not recommend a determination of the need for counsel in terms of the facts of each particular case; it draws a categorical line at those types of offenses for which incarceration as a punishment is a practical possibility.". 3000, 3002—3003 (1964). Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. The rule adopted today does not go all the way. Another guarantee is the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. 101, 203 So.2d 283 (1967); Burrage v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 53, 459 P.2d 313 (1969); Cableton v. State, 243 Ark. ..' Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 60, 64—65, 53 S.Ct. Defense lawyers appear having had no more than time for hasty conversations with their clients. [Footnote 2/12]", Yet government often does not hire lawyers to prosecute petty offenses; instead, the arresting police officer presents the case. Jon Richard ARGERSINGER, Petitioner,v.Raymond HAMLIN, Sheriff, Leon County, Florida. Argersinger v. Hamlin 9-0. Like Like. has a right to appointed counsel in all cases in which there is a due process right to a jury trial. A survey of state courts in which misdemeanors are tried showed that procedures were often informal, presided over by lay judges. Defense lawyers appear having had no more than time for hasty conversations with their clients. Providing Defense Services 40 (Approved Draft 1968). See Irvin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 407 U. S. 27-40. In Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. Local judges interviewed by the authors concluded that the right to counsel should not be extended to petty cases. Stinger v. v. Kruger, 280 Mo. Brief for Appellant in James v. Strange, decided today, 407 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. While there is historical support for limiting the "deep commitment" to trial by jury to "serious criminal cases," [Footnote 2] there is no such support for a similar limitation on the right to assistance of counsel: "Originally, in England, a person charged with treason or felony was denied the aid of counsel, except in respect of legal questions which the accused himself might suggest. But see State v. Borst, 278 Minn. 388, 154 N.W.2d 888 (1967). . 2027, 32 L.Ed.2d 600. Title 18 U.S.C. There was a problem submitting your report. Although we have given retroactive effect to our ruling in Gideon, Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U.S. 2, 84 S.Ct. [amici curiae information on Page 26 intentionally omitted]. this Court's decision should become fully applicable on the day it is announced, there could be a massive pileup in the state courts which do not now meet this standard. A unanimous Court extended that right to cover defendants charged with misdemeanors who faced the possibility of a jail sentence. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN suggests, in his concurring opinion, that law students might provide an important source of legal representation. Providing Defense Services 40 (Approved Draft 1968). Argued December 6, 1971. In order to avoid getting caught in the assembly line of justice. will confront the judges of each of these courts with an awkward dilemma. 103 (1970). Although there is less plea negotiating in petty caes, see n. 13, supra, the assistance of counsel may still be needed so that the defendant who is not faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt can make an intelligent decision whether to go to trial. Even in relatively simple cases, some defendants, because of ignorance or some other handicap, will be incapable of defending themselves. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. The assistance of counsel is often a requisite to the very existence of a fair trial. In simplest terms, this means that under no circumstances, in any court in the land, may anyone be imprisoned -- however briefly -- unless he was represented by, or waived his right to, counsel. ", Both Powell and Gideon involved felonies. 245 (1959). There, the offense was engaging without a license in the business of dealing in second-hand property, an offense punishable by a fine of $300 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days. Beyond the problem of trials and appeals is that of the guilty plea, a problem which looms large in misdemeanor, as well as in felony, cases. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), held that the States were required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to furnish counsel to all indigent defendants charged with felonies. '12 Yet government often does not hire lawyers to prosecute petty offenses; instead the arresting police officer presents the case. 333 U.S. at 333 U. S. 272. Overall, 31 States have now extended the right to defendants charged with crimes less serious than felonies. Hamlin." 771. See Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. It is doubtful that the States possess the necessary resources to meet this sudden expansion of the right to counsel. Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused is represented by counsel. First, the court should consider the complexity of the offense charged. After emphasizing that the new constitutional rule should not be made retroactive, the Solicitor General commented on the 'chaos' which could result from any mandatory requirement of counsel in misdemeanor cases: '(I)f . See 407 U.S. 25fn2/1|>n.
The Court's rule may well exacerbate delay and congestion in these courts. Nor can I agree with the new rule of due process, today enunciated by the Court, that, "absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned . Still another, the right of confrontation. Although the budgetary request for 1972 was $612,000, the legislature has appropriated only $400,000.
1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. But, as the various opinions in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. An inevitable consequence of volume that large is the almost total preoccupation in such a court with the movement of cases. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small, and sometimes no, skill in the science of law. Respecting the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, it was recently stated, "It is simply not arguable, nor has any court ever held, that the trial of a petty offense may be held in secret, or without notice to the accused of the charges, or that, in such cases, the defendant has no right to confront his accusers or to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf.". The requirement of counsel may well be necessary for a fair trial even in a petty offense prosecution. § 3006A, which provides one of the most generous compensation plans, the rates for appointed counsel -- $20 per hour spent out of court, $30 per hour of court time, subject to a maximum total fee of $400 for a misdemeanor case and $1,000 for a felony -- are low by American standards. [Footnote 2/15], Despite its overbreadth, the easiest solution would be a prophylactic rule that would require the appointment of counsel to indigents in all criminal cases. The Sixth Amendment thus extended the right to counsel beyond its common-law dimensions. The Court's new rule will accent the disadvantage of being barely self-sufficient economically. The admirable zeal of these lawyers; their eagerness to make a reputation; the time their not-yet crowded schedules permit them to devote to relatively minor legal problems; their desire for courtroom exposure; the availability in some cases of hourly fees, lucrative to the novice; and the recent constitutional explosion in procedural rights for the accused -- all these factors are likely to result in the stretching, out of the process with consequent increased costs to the public and added delay and congestion in the courts. Obviously, the sensitivity and diligence of individual judges would be crucial to the operation of a rule of fundamental fairness requiring the consideration of the varying factors in each case. He was charged with the maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. We are all strongly drawn to the ideal of extending the right to counsel, but I differ as to two fundamentals: (i) what the Constitution requires, and (ii) the effect upon the criminal justice system, especially in the smaller cities and the thousands of police, municipal, and justice of the peace courts across the country. 1, 68 (1963). After emphasizing that the new constitutional rule should not be made retroactive, the Solicitor General commented on the "chaos" which could result from any mandatory requirement of counsel in misdemeanor cases: "[I]f .
236 So.2d 442, 443.1. Formal trial rules should not be applied strictly against unrepresented defendants. § 1 defines a petty offense as one in which the penalty does not exceed imprisonment for six months, or a fine of not more than $500, or both. These programs supplement practice rules enacted in 38 States authorizing students to practice law under prescribed conditions. This holding is applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. 388 U.S., at 18, 87 S.Ct., at 1922.
If he cannot afford counsel, he has the right to have counsel appointed for him in any case in which he may lose his liberty.'.