Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to the assistance of counsel in federal court, and compliance with this mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite. If a defendant has not competently and intelligently waived this right, the court loses jurisdiction to proceed, and any resulting conviction is void and subject to collateral attack via a writ of habeas corpus.
Facts:
- Petitioner Johnson and one Bridwell, both enlisted U.S. Marines, were arrested in Charleston, South Carolina, for uttering and possessing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes.
- Being from other states, without funds, and unable to post bail, they remained in jail for two months until their indictment.
- On January 23, 1935, they were given notice of the indictment, arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced to four and a half years in prison all on the same day.
- They were unable to hire a lawyer for their trial.
- At their arraignment, they pleaded not guilty and, when asked by the court, stated they had no lawyer and were ready for trial.
- They were tried and convicted without the assistance of counsel.
- Johnson and Bridwell had little education and no relatives, friends, or acquaintances in Charleston.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnson was convicted of a federal crime in a United States District Court.
- While imprisoned, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which was denied.
- The District Court later granted a second hearing but again denied the petition, concluding that the denial of counsel was a trial error that could only be corrected on direct appeal, not through a habeas corpus proceeding.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the petition.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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 federal court's failure to provide counsel to a criminal defendant who has not intelligently waived their Sixth Amendment right to counsel render the conviction and sentence void, thereby making it subject to collateral attack in a habeas corpus proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. A federal court's failure to provide counsel to a defendant who has not competently and intelligently waived that right divests the court of jurisdiction, rendering the conviction void and subject to challenge by habeas corpus. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental safeguard necessary to ensure a fair trial, as the average layperson lacks the legal skill to defend themselves. While this right can be waived, a waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right, and courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it. The trial court has a duty to determine if a waiver is intelligent and competent based on the specific facts and circumstances, including the accused's background and experience. If this constitutional requirement is not met, the court loses its authority to proceed, and a judgment of conviction is void and may be set aside by a writ of habeas corpus, which serves as an essential remedy for violations of fundamental constitutional rights that strip a court of jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No. The judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Butler
No. The record shows that petitioner waived the right to have counsel, that the trial court had jurisdiction, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
Analysis:
Johnson v. Zerbst is a landmark decision that firmly established the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as a mandatory component of a fair trial in federal criminal proceedings. By defining the denial of counsel as a jurisdictional defect rather than a mere trial error, the Court significantly expanded the power of habeas corpus as a tool to remedy fundamental constitutional violations. This decision created the 'intelligent and competent waiver' standard, placing a proactive duty on trial courts to ensure any waiver is valid. While its direct holding was limited to federal courts, its reasoning laid the groundwork for future cases, most notably Gideon v. Wainwright, which extended the right to counsel to state criminal defendants.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Zerbst