Yes. That first hearing is a super important step in a criminal case, so you need a lawyer there. A good lawyer could poke holes in the prosecutor's story, find out what evidence the government has, help get a lower bail amount, or even get the case thrown out right away. Without a lawyer present, the accused person is at a huge disadvantage, which could lead to an unfair trial later on.

No. The Constitution says you get a lawyer in a 'criminal prosecution,' which really means the actual trial. This early hearing is just to see if there's enough evidence to bother with a trial. The Court is basically inventing a new rule that isn't in the Constitution just because it sounds like a good idea. As long as nothing the person says at that hearing is used against them later, it's fair enough.

No. Nothing bad that happened at the early hearing actually affected their trial, so their rights weren't violated. The court is now sending the case back to Alabama to figure out if the mistake was 'harmless,' but that's a ridiculous task. Since no one recorded what happened at the hearing, it's impossible to prove whether having a lawyer there would have made a difference.

Yes. The Constitution's words are clear: you get a lawyer in 'all criminal prosecutions.' This hearing is definitely part of the prosecution. We shouldn't rely on judges' personal ideas of 'fairness'; we should just follow the clear words written in the Constitution, which guarantee a lawyer at this stage.

Yes, it was wrong. The first court meeting was important, and not having a lawyer there wasn't fair because a lawyer could have helped a lot. This could have changed what happened later in the trial. The court said that this meeting is a 'critical stage' where having a lawyer is really important to protect the accused from being wrongly prosecuted, to challenge evidence, to keep track of witness statements that might help later, and to start building a strong defense.

The Constitution doesn't say a lawyer has to be there for the first court meeting because it's not part of the actual trial. The Constitution only talks about needing a lawyer for the real trial. The judges are just deciding what's fair instead of following what the Constitution actually says. The first court meeting is just about deciding if there's enough evidence for a real trial later. The person in charge can't actually say if someone is guilty or not.

The people who got arrested never said anything bad happened to them in the trial because they didn't have a lawyer at the first meeting. They didn't show how not having a lawyer hurt them in the end. Since there are no records from the first meeting, it would be impossible for them to prove they were treated unfairly. And it would be impossible for the government to prove everything was totally fair without a lawyer. The Court should just say the convictions were wrong if it really believes a lawyer had to be there.

I agree that someone accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a lawyer at the first court hearing in Alabama. That hearing is definitely part of the whole process of prosecuting someone for a crime, and the Constitution clearly says you get a lawyer for the whole process. Every lawyer who defends criminals knows you need to be there at the first hearing to protect your client. That first hearing is a 'critical stage' where having a lawyer is super important to make sure the accused person doesn't get railroaded.

If we follow the Constitution strictly like we should, then the Court made the right choice. A 'criminal prosecution' doesn't start only when the trial starts. If we said that, then poor people wouldn't get a lawyer until it was too late. The Constitution is the boss here, not our own ideas about how things should work. In some countries, the police can hold you for a long time without a lawyer, and that's when the real important decisions get made, before you ever see a courtroom. Being questioned by the police is obviously part of the 'criminal prosecution' the Constitution talks about.

I agree that other recent cases give us good reason to say the first court hearing is a critical step in a criminal case. I'm going along with the main opinion, but I have some worries. Requiring a lawyer at this stage might mean prosecutors will just skip the hearing altogether in places where they're allowed to. It might lead to courts getting rid of preliminary hearings entirely. I think when the lower court looks at this again, the result will be a lot like what Justice Harlan suggested in his separate opinion.

Based on other recent decisions, I have to agree that these people's rights were violated when Alabama didn't give them a lawyer for that first court hearing. But I don't fully agree with what the Court wants the lower court to do about it. The convictions shouldn't be overturned unless the people can show the lack of a lawyer at the hearing actually hurt their defense at the real trial. Like if a witness said something helpful but it wasn't saved because no lawyer was there to write it down. Just guessing that maybe a lawyer could have done a better job overall isn't enough of a reason to undo the jury's decision.

—a preliminary hearing in an Alabama prosecution was held to be a critical stage of that state's criminal process at which an accused is entitled to counsel.

—the United States Supreme Court held that a preliminary hearing is a "critical stage" and thus a defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel.

—the United States Supreme Court, in holding that a defendant had a right to counsel at a preliminary hearing as it was a "critical stage" in the criminal process, declared most emphatically: "Plainly the guiding hand of counsel at the preliminary hearing is essential to protect the indigent accused against an erroneous or improper prosecution. First, the lawyer's skilled …

—holding that denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to harmless error analysis

—the Court explained that under Alabama law, The sole purposes of a preliminary hearing are to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant presenting his case to the grand jury and, if so, to fix bail if the offense is bailable.

"The determination whether the hearing is a `critical stage'requiring the provision of counsel depends... upon an analysis [of] `whether potential substantial prejudice to defendant's rights inheres in the confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.'"

As is here relevant, arraignment itself must under the circumstances alleged be deemed a critical stage since, even if guilty pleas were not then elicited from the presently named plaintiffs,[2] a circumstance which would undoubtedly require the "critical stage" label

—the Sixth Amendment secures for the accused the assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing having for its purpose a determination on probable cause to hold him for further proceedings.[101]

—impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial. Fourth, counsel …

Yes. The Alabama preliminary hearing is a 'critical stage' of the state's criminal process at which the accused is as much entitled to the aid of counsel as at the trial itself. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is not limited to the trial; it applies at any stage of the prosecution where the absence of counsel might derogate from the accused's right to a fair trial. At a preliminary hearing, a lawyer's skills are necessary to: 1) expose fatal weaknesses in the state's case that might lead a magistrate to not bind the accused over; 2) fashion a vital impeachment tool for use at trial by cross-examining witnesses; 3) discover the state's case to prepare a proper defense; and 4) make effective arguments regarding bail or the need for a psychiatric examination. The inability of an indigent accused to realize these advantages on their own compels the conclusion that the preliminary hearing is a critical stage requiring appointed counsel.

No. The Constitution does not command that counsel be provided at a preliminary hearing because it is not a 'criminal prosecution' within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. The majority invents a 'critical stage' test not found in the constitutional text. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is a narrow inquiry into probable cause, not a trial. The existing rule from White v. Maryland, which prohibits the use of an uncounseled defendant's statements from the hearing at trial, provides sufficient protection. This holding creates a constitutional anomaly, as counsel is not permitted at the subsequent, and arguably more critical, grand jury inquiry.

No. The absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing did not deprive the petitioners of any constitutional rights because nothing that occurred at the hearing was used against them at their trial. The majority's holding is not about ensuring a fair trial, but about ensuring a fair preliminary hearing, a right not found in the Constitution. The remand to determine if the error was harmless is 'quixotic' because, with no record of the hearing, it is impossible for either the petitioners to show prejudice or the state to disprove it, rendering the exercise futile.

Yes. An Alabama preliminary hearing is a definite part or stage of a criminal prosecution, and the plain language of the Sixth Amendment requires the assistance of counsel 'in all criminal prosecutions.' This right is an explicit, emphatic guarantee in the Constitution and should not depend on a vague, judge-made concept of a 'fair trial.' The practical importance of the preliminary hearing, as outlined in the majority opinion, is more than sufficient to compel the conclusion that it is a critical stage where counsel is required to protect the client's interests.

Yes, the absence of appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing was a violation of the petitioners' Sixth Amendment right because the hearing is a 'critical stage' of the criminal process. The presence of counsel could have potentially influenced the outcome of the hearing and the preparation of the defense for trial. The Court emphasized that the preliminary hearing under Alabama law is not merely a procedural formality but a significant event where substantial prejudice to the defendant's rights can occur, and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice is essential. The Court also noted that counsel at this stage could serve as an effective impeachment tool, preserve favorable testimony, discover the state's case, and prepare a proper defense for trial.

The Constitution does not require counsel to be provided at a preliminary hearing because it is not a 'criminal prosecution.' The Sixth Amendment states that the right to counsel applies 'in all criminal prosecutions,' not at every 'critical event in the progress of a criminal case.' The Court is substituting its own notions of fairness for the language of the Constitution. The preliminary hearing has been an inquiry into whether the arrested person should be discharged or whether there is probable cause to submit evidence to a grand jury. No verdict can flow from the hearing magistrate's determination, and a discharge is no bar to a later indictment.

The petitioners have not alleged that anything that happened at the preliminary hearing turned out to be critical to the fairness of their trial. They have not alleged that they were affirmatively prejudiced at the trial by anything that occurred at the preliminary hearing. If the burden on remand is on the petitioners to show that they were prejudiced, it is clear that burden cannot be met since no record was made of the preliminary hearing. If the burden is on the State to disprove any speculative advantages the petitioners might have enjoyed if counsel had been present, that burden cannot be met either. The Court should simply reverse these convictions if it believes counsel was required at the preliminary hearing.

I agree that an accused has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing which Alabama grants criminal defendants. The preliminary hearing is a definite part or stage of a criminal prosecution in Alabama, and the plain language of the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all criminal prosecutions. Every attorney with experience representing criminal defendants knows that adequate representation requires counsel to be present at the preliminary hearing to protect the interests of the client. The preliminary hearing is a 'critical stage' where having a lawyer is really important to protect the accused from being wrongly prosecuted.

A strict construction of the Constitution requires the result reached by the Court. A 'criminal prosecution' does not start only when the trial starts. If that were the case, indigents would likely go to trial without effective representation. The Sixth Amendment controls, not our own ideas of what an efficient criminal code should provide. Detention incommunicado is common practice in some nations, where the critical stage of the trial takes place long before courtroom formalities commence. Custodial interrogation is obviously part of the 'criminal prosecution' that the Sixth Amendment honors.

I agree that recent cases furnish ample ground for holding the preliminary hearing a critical event in the progress of a criminal case. I join the prevailing opinion, but with some hesitation since requiring the appointment of counsel may result in fewer preliminary hearings in jurisdictions where the prosecutor is free to avoid them by taking a case directly to a grand jury. Our ruling may also invite eliminating the preliminary hearing system entirely. I would expect the application of the harmless-error standard on remand to produce results approximating those contemplated by Justice Harlan's separately stated views.

I am constrained to agree that petitioners' constitutional rights were violated when Alabama refused to appoint counsel to represent them at the preliminary hearing, given recent decisions of this Court. However, I dissent from the terms of the Court's remand. Reversal should not follow unless petitioners can show on remand that they have been prejudiced in their defense at trial, in that favorable testimony that might otherwise have been preserved was irretrievably lost by virtue of not having counsel at the preliminary hearing. Mere speculation that defense counsel might have been able to do better at trial had he been present at the preliminary hearing should not suffice to vitiate a conviction.

Coleman v. Alabama

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot