Argersinger v. Hamlin
407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless they were represented by counsel at trial.
Facts:
- Jon Richard Argersinger, an indigent person, was charged in Florida with carrying a concealed weapon.
- The offense was a misdemeanor under Florida law, punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a $1,000 fine, or both.
- Argersinger was not represented by a lawyer at his trial, which was before a judge.
- Following his conviction, Argersinger was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail.
Procedural Posture:
- Argersinger was tried and convicted in a Florida state trial court without counsel.
- The trial judge sentenced him to 90 days in jail.
- Argersinger filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the right to court-appointed counsel applies only to offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Argersinger's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does denying a court-appointed lawyer to an indigent defendant in a misdemeanor prosecution that results in actual imprisonment violate their Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes. Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense unless they were represented by counsel at trial. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel does not distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors; it applies to 'all criminal prosecutions.' While the right to a jury trial is limited to serious offenses (those with potential imprisonment of more than six months), the right to counsel has a different history and purpose. The assistance of counsel is a requisite for a fair trial, as even educated laypersons lack the legal skill to defend themselves, a problem that exists regardless of the severity of the charge if it leads to a deprivation of liberty. The complexities of law and the risk of an unjust conviction are not lessened in petty offense cases that result in actual jail time.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. While there are practical burdens, any deprivation of liberty is a serious matter, and the legal issues in a misdemeanor case can be beyond a layman's ability to handle. This ruling will require trial judges to engage in a 'predictive evaluation' of each case to determine if there is a significant likelihood of a jail sentence upon conviction. To preserve the option of imprisonment, the judge must offer to appoint counsel for any indigent defendant. This places a new burden on courts but is a necessary step in the evolution of the right to counsel.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes. I join the Court's opinion and add that law students, through clinical programs supervised by faculty, can provide an important source of legal representation for indigent defendants in cases covered by this new rule. With the significant increase in law school enrollments and the existence of student practice rules in many states, law students can make a substantial contribution to meeting the new demand for counsel.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes. While I agree with the result in this case, the Court's rigid, absolutist rule that no person may be imprisoned without counsel is unwise. The better approach would be a case-by-case determination of whether the assistance of counsel is necessary to ensure a fair trial, considering factors like the complexity of the case, the probable sentence, and the defendant's individual capabilities. However, because Argersinger was sentenced to 90 days in jail, a significant deprivation of liberty, due process required the appointment of counsel in his specific case. The majority's 'actual imprisonment' rule may create practical chaos in state court systems and is not compelled by the Constitution.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel established in Gideon v. Wainwright, which applied to felonies. Argersinger rejected the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors for the right to counsel, instead creating a new 'actual imprisonment' standard. The ruling forces the state and trial judges to make a critical choice before a trial begins: either appoint counsel for an indigent defendant or forgo the possibility of imposing a jail sentence upon conviction. This has had a profound impact on the administration of justice in lower courts, which handle a massive volume of misdemeanor cases.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"