Gideon v. Wainwright · ¶25
In Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640 (1948), this Court found no special circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel but stated that “if these charges had been capital charges, the court would have been required, both by the state statute and the decisions of this Court interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, to take some such steps.” Id., at 674. Prior to that case I find no language in any cases in this Court indicating that appointment of counsel in all capital cases was required by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the next Term of the Court Mr. Justice Reed revealed that the Court was divided as to noncapital cases but that “the due process clause... requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crimes....” Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 441 (1948). Finally, in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961), we said that “[w]hen one pleads to a capital charge without…Read in context ›
U. S. Reports, bound volume
U. S. Reports, volume 372, at 335 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.