A poor person should have legal representation during trial in order for the proceedings to comply with the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. Development of this idea took decades and started with providing counsel for those who do not have knowledge of the law, who are also likely to be indigent, and evolved into the appointment of legal counsel for indigent defendants in state courts.
In Powell v. Alabama, the case showed that legal representation for the poor during trial was necessary to give effect to the right of defendants to due process. In this case, nine black defendants faced charges of rape of two white females. Descriptions of the defendants included ‘ignorant’ and ‘illiterate’. In the rush to settle the case, in light of the hostility of the community, appointment of counsel involved calling ‘all members of the bar’ to represent the defendants. No lawyer consulted with the defendants before the trial. The Court held that no effective appointment of legal representation and compliance with due process occurred.
In Betts v. Brady, the Court took a step backwards from its decision in Powell by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose, in unequivocal language, the provision of legal representation for defendants who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers. This case involved a defendant charged with robbery who requested the circuit court to provide him with a lawyer because he does not have the means to pay for one. The circuit court denied the request since appointment of counsel was not common practice for the offense committed by the defendant. As a result, the defendant represented himself.
Issue of the plight of indigent defendants reemerged in Griffin v. Illinois. Although the case involved the denial of the request of the defendants for a transcript of the trial without making payment because they had to means to pay, the situation resulted to the denial of due process by not considering the indigent condition of the defendants. Trial transcripts were necessary for the defendants to appeal their case. Denial of the transcript because they cannot pay for it translated to the denial of their right to appeal. Justice Black explained that ‘equal justice’ is defeated if a trial depended on ability to pay, but unfortunately many indigent defendants are not represented by legal counsel who can provide sufficient time and expertise to ensure due process.
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court had the opportunity to address a case directly involving the appointment of legal representation for indigent defendants. The defendant facing a felony charge appeared in court without legal representation. He requested for the appointment of legal counsel by the Florida state court. The request was denied because the practice of appointing counsel was only limited to defendants facing capital crimes. As a result, the defendant represented himself. He received a guilty verdict and a sentence of five years imprisonment. The defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus by using as ground the denial of the request for appointment of counsel. The Court held that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment applies to the states. Assignment of legal counsel to indigent defendants by the state courts gives effect to the right to counsel. Right to counsel also ensures due process. The Court explained that extending the right to counsel to some defendants but not to others due to indigence does not align with the intended meaning of due process.
Works Cited
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
