Ferguson v. Georgia
1961 U.S. LEXIS 1444, 5 L. Ed. 2d 783, 365 U.S. 570 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that prevents a criminal defendant's counsel from questioning the defendant to elicit an unsworn statement, particularly when the defendant is statutorily deemed incompetent to testify under oath, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel.
Facts:
- At the time, Georgia was the only common-law jurisdiction with a rule (§ 38-416) making criminal defendants incompetent to testify under oath in their own defense.
- A separate Georgia statute (§ 38-415) permitted a criminal defendant to make an unsworn statement to the court and jury, which the jury could believe over sworn testimony.
- Ferguson was on trial for murder in a Georgia state court.
- After the prosecution rested its case, Ferguson's counsel called him to the stand to make his unsworn statement.
- Ferguson's counsel attempted to ask him questions to elicit and guide his statement.
- The State of Georgia objected, arguing that defense counsel was not permitted to question the defendant during the unsworn statement.
- The trial judge sustained the state's objection, preventing counsel from questioning Ferguson.
Procedural Posture:
- Ferguson was charged with murder in the Superior Court of Douglas County, Georgia, a state trial court.
- During the trial, the court sustained the state's objection and refused to allow Ferguson's counsel to question him during his unsworn statement.
- A jury convicted Ferguson of murder, and the court sentenced him to death.
- Ferguson, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Georgia, the state's highest court, arguing the trial court's ruling denied him his constitutional right to counsel.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction and the trial court's ruling.
- Ferguson, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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 state's application of a statute that allows a criminal defendant to make an unsworn statement, but prohibits the defendant's counsel from asking questions to elicit that statement, violate the defendant's right to counsel under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when another state statute deems the defendant incompetent to testify under oath?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. In effectuating its statute allowing an unsworn statement, Georgia could not, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, deny the appellant the right to have his counsel question him to elicit his statement. The right to the assistance of counsel is a fundamental element of due process, and to deny counsel's help at the critical stage when the accused presents his version of the facts is to render the right to be heard by counsel of little worth. The unsworn statement practice was a historical 'stopgap solution' to mitigate the harshness of the rule making defendants incompetent to testify. Without the 'guiding hand of counsel,' a defendant under the pressure of a trial is ill-equipped to present a coherent and complete defense, turning a supposed privilege into a potential 'trap.' This denial of counsel's assistance at a critical stage of the proceeding violates the due process requirements imposed on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. While agreeing with the judgment to reverse, the majority's reasoning is too narrow and avoids the core constitutional issue. The two Georgia statutes—§ 38-415 (unsworn statement) and § 38-416 (incompetency to testify)—are organically inseparable and must be considered as a single scheme. The Court should have directly adjudicated and struck down the underlying incompetency statute, § 38-416, as an archaic rule that violates due process. By failing to do so, the Court's decision creates a distorted procedural advantage for defendants in Georgia—the ability to give a counsel-assisted unsworn statement without facing cross-examination—and merely delays the inevitable ruling that the incompetency statute itself is unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case marked a significant application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to state criminal procedures, eroding an archaic rule that disadvantaged defendants. While the Court did not directly strike down Georgia's witness-incompetency statute, its holding made the companion unsworn-statement practice functionally dependent on the assistance of counsel, thereby undermining the state's procedural scheme. The strong concurrences signaled that the underlying incompetency rule was constitutionally indefensible, foreshadowing its eventual demise and continuing the trend of incorporating federal constitutional protections into state criminal proceedings. The decision effectively pushed Georgia and any other jurisdiction with similar rules to modernize their evidence and procedure laws to align with fundamental standards of fairness.
