I. INTRODUCTION
a. 2 Models of Criminal Procedure
i. Due Process Model (Left, liberal)
1. Protect rights of defendants (Warren Court)
2. Soft on Crime, Bleeding Hearts
ii. Crime Control Model (Right, Conservative)
1. Protect the rights of society (Burger and Rehnquist)
2. Protect public from evils of crime; rednecks
3. Give more power to police to enforce the law (hardliners)
II. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
a. 6thÆ- the rights of the accused- “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
b. Background of Right to Counsel
i. Betts v. Brady(1942) (6th Æ doesn’t apply to states)
1. Facts: Indigent Δ indicted for robbery in state court (felony), Δ wanted counsel but was denied. Local practice only allowed appointment of counsel for capital cases. Proceed pro se and was convicted.
2. Didn’t Violate 14th Æ- state statute did not violate the 14th Æ DPC.
a. 14th Æ- no state shall deny a person life, liberty or property w/o DP
3. Δ’s Argument- 14th Æ’s right of DPC makes 6th Æ (right of counsel) applicable to the states.
a. Fed Case- if it would have been a federal case, he would have gotten counsel under 6th, but at time 6th didn’t apply to the states.
4. Fundamental Fairness Test- the court applied this test.
a. Holding- the right to counsel is not so fundamental to a fair trial that in order for DP, the right of counsel under the 6th must be applied to the states. (He wasn’t treated unconstitutionally)
b. Court’s Rationale
i. Case by Case- certain cases where accused doesn’t have counsel, due process might require counsel, must evaluate on case-by-case basis.
ii. Not Complex- Δ’s of ordinary intelligence, issue not complex (Δ argued he had an alibi) and Δ had been through the system before.
1. More Complex? Alawyer might have found other complex defenses to help Δ à this is why case should’ve been reversed.
5. Situation at Time of Betts
a. Majority of States- right to counsel was not a fundamental right, SC didn’t want the federal system taking over the state system.
b. Administrative Costs- bog down the system
ii. Other line of Cases (2 values: autonomy and fundamental fairness)
1. Paying for Counsel- denying a Δ the assistance of their own counsel on any issue is a per se violation of fundamental fairness.
a. Autonomy- courts in this line of cases protect Δ’s autonomy.
i. Money- by not allowing Δ to hire his own lawyer, the state is telling Δ how to spend his money, state can’t do this.
b. Bett’s Value- no autonomy value in Betts, court isn’t telling him how to spend his money (he has none)
i. Value in Betts- court is protecting his fundamental fairness.
c. Right to Counsel Constitutionally Imposed on States
i. Gideon v. Wainwright(1963) (overrules Betts)
1. Facts: Δ was charged in FL court with a felony. Δ’s reques
represented by counsel, regardless if it was a petty or non-petty crime.
a. Right to Counsel- right to counsel may be necessary even in petty offenses.
b. Misdemeanors are Complex- no basis for argument that misdemeanors are not complex legal issues, some misdemeanors are very complex.
c. Right to Counsel and Jury- in this case, right to counsel takes precedence, Δ gets right to counsel but no right to jury.
d. No Imprisonment w/o counsel- can’t impose imprisonment unless Δ has counsel.
iii. Scott v. Illinois(Counsel for actual imprisonment, not just threat)
1. Facts: Δ shoplifting, punishable by $500 or 1 year in prison. Denied counsel, convicted and fined $50.
2. Holding:No right to counsel because he was only fined, not imprisoned. (different holding if he would have gone to jail)
a. Right to Jury- Δ had right to jury, but in this case no right to counsel.
i. Opposite of Arsinger- in Arsinger, Δ had right to counsel but not jury.
b. No Imprisonment- even tho offense was punishable by imprisonment, Δ wasn’t imprisoned, so his rights were not denied.
Actual Imprisonment Is Trigger- imprisonment triggers right to counsel.
