Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Betts v. Brady

Supreme Court of the United States · 1942 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentHabeas Corpusright to counselappointed counselindigent defendant

Facts

The petitioner was indicted for robbery in Maryland and told the trial judge he lacked funds to hire counsel. He requested appointed counsel, but the judge refused because it was not the local practice to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. The petitioner then pleaded not guilty, waived a jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, called witnesses supporting an alibi, and was convicted and sentenced to eight years. He later sought habeas corpus, arguing that the refusal to appoint counsel deprived him of liberty without due process of law.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require a state court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant in every criminal case upon request? More specifically, did Maryland's refusal to appoint counsel for this robbery defendant render his conviction unconstitutional?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment's counsel guarantee applies only to federal courts and is not incorporated as such into the Fourteenth Amendment. In state criminal proceedings, due process does not impose an invariable rule requiring appointment of counsel in every case; instead, whether the absence of counsel violates due process depends on the totality of the facts and whether, in the particular circumstances, the trial was fundamentally unfair.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boise, Idaho, Aaron Pike, an indigent 41-year-old warehouse worker, is charged in state court with misdemeanor assault after a bar fight. He asks the judge to appoint counsel, but the judge refuses under a local practice of appointing counsel only in homicide cases. Aaron chooses a bench trial, cross-examines the two eyewitnesses, presents one friend who says he acted in self-defense, and is convicted.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest argument that Aaron's conviction should be upheld against a due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that the Sixth Amendment counsel guarantee applies only to federal courts and is not incorporated as such against the states. In state prosecutions, the question is whether, considering the totality of the facts, the lack of counsel made the proceeding fundamentally unfair. A simple bench trial on a narrow factual dispute, with an adult defendant of ordinary intelligence who examined witnesses, does not necessarily offend fundamental fairness.