One important part of a fair trial is the right to counsel, or the right to be represented by a lawyer whether or not the defendant can afford one. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in federal courts. The key Supreme Court cases Powell v. Alabama, Betts v. Brady, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Escobedo v. Illinois extended this right to those being tried in state courts.

In the case of Powell v. Alabama (1932), also known as the Scottsboro Boys Case, the Court ordered the state to provide an attorney to poor defendants accused of capital crimes. In this case, nine black youths were accused of raping two white girls in Scottsboro, Alabama. After the alleged attacks, the boys were nearly lynched by a mob of angry citizens. The uproar led Alabama officials to speed through the legal proceedings. The boys were brought to trial just three weeks after their arrest, and all three trials took only one day.

State law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys that were appointed did not consult with the boys and merely appeared to represent them at the trial. All nine boys were sentenced to death. The case was appealed, and the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether these "too speedy" and "under-counseled" trials violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the trials did deny due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense. This was the first time the Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a capital case.

In the case of Betts v. Brady (1942), the defendant, Betts, was indicted for robbery and detained in a Maryland jail. Betts was denied his request for an attorney, and he was quickly convicted. While he was in prison, Betts filed a habeas corpus petition asking the state court to determine whether his conviction was lawful. After the court rejected his petition, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking it to review the lower court's decision—and the Court agreed to hear Betts' case. Betts claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated given that his request for counsel was ignored. The Court found in favor of Betts, however, it stated that only under special circumstances did the defendant have the right to an attorney in a non-capital case. These circumstances included mental retardation, illiteracy, and diminished mental awareness.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overturned the Betts ruling in 1963. This landmark case was a critical turning point regarding the right to counsel. Clarence Gideon, a 51-year old ex-convict, was arrested for breaking into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. He could not afford a lawyer, so he requested counsel from the state. The court denied Gideon's requests, and he was forced to represent himself without counsel at the trial. The court convicted Gideon and sentenced him to serve five years in a state prison.

While in prison, Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition, which the state court denied. He followed up with a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which it agreed to hear. The Supreme Court then did what the Florida court would not do: provide him with a lawyer. Gideon's lawyer, Abe Fortas who later became a Supreme Court justice, stated that all defendants in all cases, capital or otherwise, should be allowed a lawyer in court. He felt lawyers were not luxuries during a trial—they were necessities. The Court agreed, and extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to anyone accused of a felony in a state court. Later, in the case of Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Court extended the right to counsel even in misdemeanor cases if the accused was imprisoned.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) upheld the Gideon ruling, and extended it to include counsel for those accused of felonies during questioning, as well as the trial. Chicago police arrested 22-year old Danny Escobedo on suspicion of murder. During questioning that lasted several hours, Escobedo continually requested to speak to his lawyer, and the police ignored his requests. They even denied Escobedo's lawyer, who was in the police station, access to his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder and was convicted. His lawyer appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction, so he appealed to the Supreme Court. Escobedo claimed that because he was denied the right to counsel, he was un-fairly convicted. The Court ruled in favor of Escobedo and held that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The case was a pre-cursor to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), as it dealt with Escobedo's self-incrimination and the right to remain silent.

Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education