Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Opinion of the Court 

the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought 
before  a  tribunal  with  power  to  take  his  life  or  liberty, 
wherein  the  prosecution  is  presented  by  experienced  and 
learned  counsel”  (emphasis  added)).  And  this  kind  of 
proceeding  is  not  before  us.    Neither  do  we  address  what 
due  process  requires  in  an  unusually  complex  case  where 
a  defendant  “can  fairly  be  represented  only  by  a  trained 
advocate.”  Gagnon, 411 U. S., at 788; see also Reply Brief 
for  Petitioner  18–20  (not  claiming  that  Turner’s  case  is 
especially complex). 

IV 
The record indicates that Turner received neither coun-
sel nor the benefit of alternative procedures like those we 
have  described.  He  did  not  receive  clear  notice  that  his 
ability to pay would constitute the critical question in his 
civil  contempt  proceeding.    No  one  provided  him  with  a
form  (or  the  equivalent)  designed  to  elicit  information 
about his financial circumstances.  The court did not find 
that Turner was able to pay his arrearage, but instead left 
the relevant “finding” section of the contempt order blank. 
The  court  nonetheless  found  Turner  in  contempt  and 
ordered  him  incarcerated.    Under  these  circumstances 
Turner’s incarceration violated the Due Process Clause. 

We vacate the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme
Court  and  remand  the  case  for  further  proceedings  not
inconsistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.