Legal Document

332 U.S. 134 67 Supreme Court Reporter 1716 91 L.Ed. 1955 FOSTER et al.v.PEOPLE OF STATE ILLINOIS. Number 540. Argued May 8, 1947. Decided June 23, Mr. Charles Kaufman, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. William C. Wines, respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinionof Cou rt. 1 This is an original proceeding in Illinois by way writ error to test validity sentences imprisonment following pleas guilty. The having denied writ, 394 Ill. 194, 68 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd Series 252, we brought case here, 329 712, 630, because importance reviewing convictions where solid doubt raised whether requirements due process have been observed. 2 On February 22, 1935, petitioners were sentenced confinement State Penitentiary, under indeterminate sentence law, after pleading guilty indictment charging them with burglary and larceny. Cahill's Ill.Rev.Stats. (1933) chapter 38, §§ 65, 796, Ill.Rev.Stat.1933, 84, 802. Since controversy turns on legal significance circumstances which accepted, it important state according record which, purposes this proceeding, binding upon therefore Court. According 'Minutes from Judges Docket,' defendants Foster Payne (petitioners here), 'having furnished a copy Indictment list Jurors Peoples Witnesses are advised their rights Trial consequences entry plea being arraigned open says, each himself That he larceny as charged thereupon advises admonishes said entering such guilty, Thereafter still persist * Whereupon received entered record.' 3 'The finds ages be follows, respectively, Nelson 34 years old, George Payne, alias Elijah Jefferson 48 years. *' 4 Eleven later, 7, 1946, asked discharge. Various grounds urged rejected. Our sole concern claim 'that fails show' compliance Fourteenth Amendment insofar Due Process Clause that requires accused benefit counsel. 5 considerations guide disposition canvassed here series recent opinions. 'due law' exacts States conception fundamental justice. See Hebert versus Louisiana, 272 312, 316, 47 103, 104, 71 270, American Law Reports 1102; Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 151, 152, 82 288. It not satisfied merely formal procedural correctness, nor confined any absolute rule Sixth contains securing 'the Assistance counsel his defence.' By virtue provision, must indigent defendant prosecuted federal court every case, whatever circumstances. supra, at page 327, 288; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 1019, 1461, 146 357; Betts Brady, 316 455, 464—465, 62 1252, 1257, 86 1595. Prosecutions courts subject fixed requirement. So held fullest consideration. supra. But law order 'due' does require give ample opportunity meet accusation. And so, 'particular situation,' assignment may 'essential substance hearing' part imposes sentence. Such need exist contests charge agaist him or pleads 6 rationale application was first expounded Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158, 84 527. In our decisions spoken Alabama,' thereby indicating essential scope doctrine. Williams Kaiser, 323 471, 476—477, 65 363, 366, 89 398; Tomkins Missouri, 485, 488, 370, 372, 407. doctrine invoked found wanting, prisoner sustained burden proving, prepared prove but opportunity, want ingredient unfairness actively operated resulted confinement. pages 51, 53, 56, 57—58, 57, 58, 59, 60, 527; Smith O'Grady, 312 329, 334, 61 572, 574, 85 859; 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 364, 365, 486—487, 371, 407; House Mayo, 324 42, 45—46, 517, 519, 520, 739; White Ragen, 760, 762 763, 978, 979, 980, 1348; Rice Olson, 786, 788—789, 989, 990, 991, 1367. Only other day concerning first-degree murder against seventeen-year old defendant, deprivation 'of fair hearing,' took pains point out did explain indicates considerable confusion petitioner's mind time arraignment effect plea.' De Meerleer Michigan, 663, 664, 596, 597. 7 there neither proof uncontradicted allegation miscarriage justice accepting plainly imports observance process. contemporaneous language trial court, 'are guilty,' 'advises thereafter persisting, There nothing common-law record, basis rendered its decision, contradict account proceedings 1935. We thus bald that, disclose offer although before duly 'rights Trial' plea, 'deprived hearing Federal Constitution.' 665, 8 reject claim. Most incarcerations probably most made without felt us suggest might desirable who desires plead opportunities enter formality deliberate disclaimer full appreciation meaning responsible judges. duty go beyond safeguarding States. After all, process, 'itself historical product,' Jackman Rosenbaum Co., 260 31, 43 9, 107, turned into destructive dogma administration systems criminal lived only butfor ei ghty since adoption. militate respect deeply rooted abrupt innovation recognition constitutional implies, would furnish hitherto uncontemplated opening wide prison doors land. 9 Insofar attacked claims consideration alone see they here. Carter Illinois, 173, 216. They procedure provide, or, default relief appropriate proceedings, new denial relief. Mooney Holohan, 294 55 340, 79 791, 98 406. 10 Affirmed. 11 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS, MURPHY RUTLEDGE join, dissenting. 12 Adamson California, decided, 46, 1672, waters down Amendment's Bill Rights guarantee self-incrimination so make compatible Court's standards decency trial. similarly cases. both cases, refuses strike obtained disregard guarantees, assuming all while identical violate Rights. For Court, instant concedes Amendment, 'counsel circumstances.' This, course, relates 13 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions voiced my objections dilution protections courts. decision another example can produced substitution day-to-day opinion what kind decent guarantees. right cannot know provision will next attenuated least sure more, long adheres case. 14 relies heavily man relief, too poor hire lawyer, whose request appointment lawyer denied, compelled act own robbery. Conviction followed. precedent one. had hoped perpetuate. 15 One thing more. seems fear protecting these defendants' extent defined 'opportunities land,' presumably, many people like Betts, behind those trials do believe reason even relevant determination should decline enforce 16 RUTLEDGE, concur, 17 think guaranty causes applicable 18 Apart view force independently prescribes partial similar guaranty, cf. Palkov. Connect icut, 1595; 527, am unable accept conclusion Of course if so-called presumption regularity effective sustain presented Gayes New York, 145, 1711, decided today, work same somewhat less startling facts 19 when discloses much shows, permitted overcome violated right. indeed, valid mere fact judgment has rendered, always indulged. Cf. 596. action preservation rights, more especially ignorant employ resources be, basic counsel, also equal protection laws sweeping application. Poverty wealth difference shadow protections. 20 Here serious crimes larceny, handed indictment, arraigned. Every knows difficulties charges, including technicalities statutes practice relating included lesser offenses. involved penalties one year life, penalty actually imposed 21 very down, arraigned, sentenced. At no offered receive assistance true, recites 'advised notwithstanding whereupon despite persisted plea. 22 However vague recital taken circumstances, regarded either informed Indeed deliberately avoided statements respect. And, whole, required read light conclude intentional omission establish 23 out, heart were, effect, tendered appointed court. tender inquire inform Indeed, state, seems, exceeded powers taking respects. 24 entitled, required, state's them. statute capital cases affirmative duty, appears indigent, counsel.1 non applies: 25 '* person crime shall allowed oath procure assign competent conduct defense.' Ill.Rev.Stat. (1945) par. 730. 26 consistently construed requiring requests states expressly 'does place proffer services *.' People Lavendowski, 326 176, 157 N.E.193, advising Corrie, 387 587, 589, 590, 56 767. Corbett, 41, 74; Childers, 386 878; Fuhs, 390 67, 60 205. failure inability apparently waiver Stubblefield, 391 609, 610, 63 762.2 27 Finally, shows rules.3 28 decisions, therefore, present petitioners, inquired ability secure aid, assistance. tenable refrained deliberately, accordance 29 Moreover, men appear obviously far means charges involving character imposed, altogether inconsistent shut eyes helpless condition inquiry cause. A system callous men, personal freedom comporting fairness, tolerate action, wholly contrary scheme things nation's charter establishes. Courts judges, plan, owe something than negative sit silent blind prison, appears, hint rights. 30 Adding blindness 'presumption regularity' done makes mockery judicial sense snare delusion pay cost observance. 'Whenever indicted her defense, appoint defendants, reasonable sum note 3. 'It contended plaintiffs represent protect shown indicated desired repeatedly represented waive determine. contention merit.' 195, 253.

Classification Label: 0