Yes, this broke the rule of fairness. The court said that what happened in Alabama was completely unfair. The judge's announcement that 'all the lawyers in town' were appointed was just for show; it wasn't a real appointment. These defendants were young, scared, illiterate, and facing the death penalty in a hostile town. A trial isn't fair if you don't have a lawyer to help you understand what's happening and prepare a defense. Rushing them to trial without a real, prepared lawyer was like not giving them a fair hearing at all. The Constitution's promise of fairness means you get a real chance to defend yourself, and for that, you need a lawyer.

No, the trial was fair enough. The dissenting judge believed the defendants did have real lawyers who did their jobs. He pointed out that the lawyers on record were experienced and did lawyer-like things, such as questioning witnesses and filing court papers. He argued that if the lawyers really needed more time, they should have asked the judge for it, but they never did. He felt the Supreme Court was overstepping its bounds by telling a state how to run its own courts.

Yes, it was unfair and against the Constitution. In a case where someone could be executed, if the person can't get a lawyer and can't defend themselves because they aren't smart enough or can't read or something like that, the court must give them a lawyer. This is because the right to be treated fairly would mean nothing if it didn't include the right to have a lawyer help. Even a smart, educated person doesn't know much about the law and needs a lawyer's help at every step. The court not giving the men real lawyers was unfair and wrong.

The information we have doesn't show the men weren't allowed to have lawyers. The court did choose lawyers for them. There's no sign the lawyers weren't given enough time to get ready. The majority's decision that not giving them good lawyers is unfair and against the Constitution is getting the federal government too involved in how states handle crimes and trials.

Yes, it was unfair and against the Constitution. In a case where someone could be executed, if the person can't get a lawyer and can't defend themselves because they aren't smart enough or can't read or something like that, we must give them a lawyer. This is because the right to be treated fairly would mean nothing if it didn't include the right to have a lawyer's help. Even a smart, educated person doesn't know much about the law and needs a lawyer's help at every step. Not giving these men real lawyers was unfair and wrong.

No, it wasn't unfair or against the Constitution. We see nothing that shows these men were actually denied lawyers. They were given lawyers, and there's no sign those lawyers weren't given enough time to get ready. The majority's idea that not giving them good lawyers is unfair and against the Constitution gets the federal government too involved in how states handle crimes and trials.

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.

Goodwillie notes that the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Sixth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right to be represented by counsel

—state court's refusal to appoint counsel for indigent defendant in capital case violated sixth amendment as applied through due process clause of fourteenth amendment

The defendant] requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence

The inquiry is whether a right involved `is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions."...'

It is hardly necessary to say that the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice

—the Court noted that'*** during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings*** that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation (are) vitally important, the defendants***(are) as much entitled to such aid (of counsel) during that period as at the trial itself

In Powell, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial to represent the defendants, but the Supreme Court found that such counsel was not sufficient.

The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands …

Second, the Court explained that the only rights protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause were those rights "of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law." Ibid.

Yes, a state's failure to provide indigent defendants in a capital case with effective legal counsel and a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to a hearing, a fundamental element of due process, includes the right to be heard by counsel. This is especially true for defendants who are young, ignorant, and illiterate, facing a capital charge in a hostile environment, as they are incapable of adequately defending themselves. The trial court's appointment of 'all members of the bar' was a mere gesture, not an effective appointment of counsel, as it imposed no specific responsibility on any single attorney. The defendants were denied counsel during the critical pre-trial period for investigation and preparation, and were rushed to trial within six days of indictment, effectively denying them the 'guiding hand of counsel' necessary for a fair trial. Therefore, in a capital case where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable of making his own defense, the court has a duty to assign counsel as a necessary requisite of due process.

No, the record does not show that the defendants were denied the right to counsel in violation of the Due Process Clause. The defendants were represented by experienced local counsel, who actively participated by filing motions, cross-examining state witnesses, and presenting evidence. The informality of the counsel appointment process is not dispositive, and there is no evidence that the attorneys were restrained from fully performing their duties. Critically, defense counsel never applied to the court for a postponement, which they would have done if they felt unprepared for trial. The majority's conclusion that the trial court failed to make an 'effective appointment' is an unnecessary extension of federal authority into state criminal procedure, as the record does not support the claim that defendants were denied time and opportunity to secure counsel.

Yes, the denial of counsel violated due process. In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable of making his own defense due to ignorance, feeble-mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel as a necessary requisite of due process. This is because the right to be heard would be of little avail if it did not include the right to be heard by counsel. Even an intelligent and educated layman has little skill in the law and requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step. The failure to effectively appoint counsel was a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The record does not show that the defendants were denied the right of counsel. Counsel was appointed by the court and represented the defendants at trial. There is no indication that counsel was denied adequate time or opportunity to prepare. The majority's ruling that the failure to appoint effective counsel violates due process unnecessarily extends federal authority into state criminal procedure without being called upon to decide this constitutional question.

No. The record does not show that the defendants were denied the right of counsel. Counsel was appointed by the court and represented the defendants at trial. There is no indication that counsel was denied adequate time or opportunity to prepare. The majority's ruling that the failure to appoint effective counsel violates due process unnecessarily extends federal authority into state criminal procedure without being called upon to decide this constitutional question.

Powell v. Alabama (Scottsboro Boys Trial)

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