Lexplug logoLexplug

Betts v. Brady

Supreme Court of United States
316 U.S. 455 (1942)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases to the states, meaning states are not required to appoint counsel for indigent defendants in every criminal proceeding. Instead, a defendant is only entitled to appointed counsel if the particular circumstances of their case show that the absence of a lawyer would result in a trial lacking fundamental fairness.


Facts:

  • Betts was indicted for robbery in Carroll County, Maryland.
  • Being indigent, Betts was unable to afford an attorney for his defense.
  • At his arraignment, Betts requested that the court appoint counsel for him.
  • The trial judge denied the request, explaining that it was the local practice to appoint counsel for indigent defendants only in rape and murder prosecutions.
  • Betts pleaded not guilty and elected for a trial before a judge without a jury.
  • Representing himself, Betts summoned witnesses, cross-examined the state's witnesses, and presented an alibi defense.
  • He was ultimately convicted of robbery.

Procedural Posture:

  • Betts was convicted of robbery in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Maryland, a state trial court, after a trial before a judge.
  • He was sentenced to eight years in prison.
  • While imprisoned, Betts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a judge of the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland, which was denied.
  • Betts then filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
  • The Chief Judge denied the habeas corpus relief, holding that the trial was not fundamentally unfair.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Locked

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 the refusal of a state court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant in a non-capital criminal case violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts

No. The refusal of a state court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant in every criminal case does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel applies only to trials in federal courts. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate this specific guarantee and apply it to the states. Instead, due process is a more fluid concept, tested by an appraisal of the 'totality of facts' in a given case. A denial of due process occurs only if the trial is offensive to the 'common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right.' A review of historical state practices showed no consensus that appointing counsel in all cases was a fundamental right. In this particular case, the Court found no fundamental unfairness, noting that the issue was a simple factual dispute over an alibi, and Betts was a man of ordinary intelligence, not helpless in presenting his defense.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black

Yes. The state's refusal to appoint counsel violated the petitioner's rights under the Federal Constitution. The dissent argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should make the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applicable to the states. Even under the majority's 'fundamental fairness' standard, the result should be reversed because the right to counsel is 'fundamental.' A practice that subjects innocent individuals to an increased danger of conviction simply due to their poverty cannot be reconciled with 'common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right.' Citing Powell v. Alabama, the dissent emphasized that even an intelligent layman lacks the skill to adequately prepare a defense, and without a lawyer, an innocent person faces a real danger of conviction.



Analysis:

Betts v. Brady established the 'special circumstances' or 'case-by-case' rule for the right to counsel in state criminal proceedings, rejecting the total incorporation of the Sixth Amendment right. This decision created a standard where an indigent defendant had to demonstrate that their specific circumstances—such as illiteracy, low intelligence, or the complexity of the case—made the lack of counsel fundamentally unfair. This ruling stood for over twenty years but led to inconsistent outcomes and a flood of litigation, as courts struggled to define what constituted 'special circumstances.' The decision was ultimately and famously overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, which incorporated the right to counsel in all felony cases.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Betts v. Brady (1942)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"