Right-to-Counsel Supreme Court Case

As far back as 1932 the Supreme Court had been recognizing a defendant’s right to counsel as “essential to the safeguarding of American freedoms,” leaving the extent of that, however, to the individual states. (Here)

In 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright held that “no one, regardless of wealth, education or class, should be charged with a crime and then forced to face his accusers in court without the guidance of counsel.”
We sidebar here, demitting & referring the reader to Wikipedia’s excellent summary as to differences in state and federal viewpoints of the right to counsel and waivers of that right.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would undertake to further clarify when a suspect taken into custody by police has a right to a lawyer. The question is whether that right sets in when an individual has been taken before a magistrate, who finds reason to believe a crime has been committed, or whether it only attaches when a prosecutor prepares or makes a charge. [ Rothgery v. Gillespie County (Texas) 07-440],

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, last June, had approached the subject based on late-’70 and early-‘80 precedents holding that “the right to counsel does not attach in Texas when a defendant appears before a magistrate for statutory warnings if prosecutors are unaware of and uninvolved in the arrest & appearance.” (i.e. Kirby v. Illinois)

The petitioner’s writ of certiorari also refers to late ‘70s law, citing Brewer v. Williams, which had quoted Kirby, but stated that “there can be no doubt... that judicial proceedings have been initiated and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached when a defendant was arrested, made an initial appearance before a court, and was committed by the court to confinement in jail pending trial.”


Rothgery’s petition for writ of certiorari
Fifth Circuit Appeal
District Court’s Opinion