Opinion ID: 2381416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States Supreme Court Treatment of the Right to Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Text: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right    to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court made this requirement applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). The Gideon decision, however, did not reveal the contours of the right to counsel inasmuch as that holding was limited to facts that involved a felony conviction. The issue of the right to counsel was revisited in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), in which the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether indigent defendants facing misdemeanor charges are entitled to appointed counsel. The Argersinger Court concluded that the rationale of the Gideon decision has relevance to any criminal trial, where an accused is deprived of his liberty. Id. at 32, 92 S.Ct. at 2010, 32 L.Ed.2d at 536. Argersinger went on to hold that any criminal prosecution resulting in the actual deprivation of an indigent defendant's liberty must be accompanied by the appointment of counsel for that defendant. Id. at 40, 92 S.Ct. at 2014, 32 L.Ed.2d at 540. Although Argersinger did not specifically address the question of whether counsel must be appointed when no imprisonment will result, the Supreme Court did reach this issue seven years later, in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979). Scott, an indigent defendant, was convicted of shoplifting and fined $50 after a trial in which he was not assisted by appointed counsel. In an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that the right to appointed counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution requires only that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense. Id. at 374, 99 S.Ct. at 1162, 59 L.Ed.2d at 389. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holdings of Scott and Argersinger in Nichols v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994), and held that prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions that did not themselves result in imprisonment could serve to enhance sentencing for subsequent offenses, even in the event that a subsequent sentence would include imprisonment. Id. at ___ - ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1927-28, 128 L.Ed.2d at 755. In so holding, the Supreme Court expressly adhered to its holding in Scott. Id. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1928, 128 L.Ed.2d at 755.