Carnley v. Cochran
369 U.S. 506 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Waiver of the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel cannot be presumed from a silent record. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer.
Facts:
- Willard Carnley, an illiterate man, was charged with incestuous sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter and lewd assault based on the same acts.
- Carnley represented himself at his jury trial and was not afforded the assistance of counsel.
- The only two witnesses who testified against him were his daughter and his 15-year-old son.
- Carnley and his wife testified that they had experienced disciplinary problems with the children, raising a potential avenue for impeaching the children's testimony.
- Carnley chose to testify in his own defense, at which point his prior criminal record was brought out on cross-examination.
- The trial record was silent as to whether Carnley was ever offered counsel or whether he had waived his right to counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Willard Carnley was prosecuted in the Court of Record for Escambia County, Florida, a state trial court.
- A jury found Carnley guilty of the charges.
- Carnley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, alleging his conviction was unconstitutional because he was denied counsel.
- The Florida Supreme Court issued a provisional writ but later discharged it without an evidentiary hearing, denying Carnley's petition.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Carnley's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment 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 a silent record permit a presumption that an accused in a state criminal proceeding waived their constitutional right to counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. A silent record does not permit a presumption that an accused waived their constitutional right to counsel. The right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional right, and courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against its waiver. It is settled that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request from the accused. Therefore, presuming waiver from a defendant's failure to request a lawyer or from a record that is silent on the matter is impermissible. To be a valid waiver, the record must affirmatively show that the accused was offered counsel and that they intelligently and understandingly rejected that offer. Given Carnley's illiteracy, the complexity of the charges, and the procedural challenges of a jury trial, the assistance of counsel was a constitutional requisite, and there is no evidence of a valid waiver.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
I concur in the judgment but would go further by explicitly overruling Betts v. Brady. The 'special circumstances' rule from Betts, which requires a case-by-case determination of whether denying counsel is 'shocking to the universal sense of justice,' has proven to be an unworkably vague and unpredictable standard. The Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to make the Sixth Amendment's unequivocal guarantee of counsel applicable to the states in all criminal prosecutions. This would provide a clear and consistent standard rather than the capricious one currently in place.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
I concur and wish to emphasize the procedural labyrinth a layman faces in a jury trial, making counsel essential. An illiterate defendant like the petitioner cannot be expected to understand the complex rules of jury selection, peremptory challenges, challenges for cause, objecting to hearsay, or proposing jury instructions. Without a lawyer, the jury system, intended as a safeguard of justice, becomes a trap for the accused. This reality further demonstrates why the rule of Betts v. Brady should be overruled and a universal right to counsel established.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforced the procedural requirements for a valid waiver of the right to counsel in state criminal proceedings. It explicitly rejected the notion that waiver can be presumed from a silent record, placing an affirmative duty on trial courts to offer counsel and ensure any waiver is knowing, intelligent, and recorded. The powerful concurrences by Justices Black and Douglas signaled the Court's profound dissatisfaction with the flexible 'special circumstances' test from Betts v. Brady. This decision was a critical step toward the landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright a year later, which would fully incorporate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the states.
Unlock the full brief for Carnley v. Cochran