Ferguson v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1961 · Evidence

365 U.S. 570 (1961)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencedue processright to counselguiding hand of counselunsworn statementcriminal defendant incompetencyGeorgia Code § 38-415Georgia Code § 38-416

Facts

Georgia retained the common-law rule making a person charged with a criminal offense incompetent to testify under oath at his own trial, but allowed the accused to make an unsworn statement to the court and jury under Georgia Code § 38-415. After the State rested in appellant's murder trial, defense counsel called appellant to the stand and attempted to question him. The trial judge sustained the State's objection and ruled that under § 38-415 counsel could do no more than instruct the client about his rights and had no right to question him on direct examination. Appellant argued that this denial deprived him of the benefit of counsel at the most important point in the trial.

Issue

Whether Georgia's application of § 38-415, in the context of Georgia's separate rule that a criminal defendant is incompetent to testify under oath, denied appellant due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to allow his counsel to question him to elicit his statement.

Rule

When a State denies a criminal defendant competency to testify under oath but permits only an unsworn statement in his defense, due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the defendant be allowed the guiding hand of counsel in eliciting that statement. In Georgia, the State could not, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, deny the accused the right to have counsel question him to elicit his statement under § 38-415.

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 a criminal trial in Macon, Georgia, state law makes defendants incompetent to testify under oath in their own cases but permits each accused to make an unsworn statement to the jury. When Damon Reed takes the stand, the judge allows him to speak freely but forbids his lawyer from asking any questions to organize his account.

Did the judge's ruling violate due process?

Explanation. The majority held that where a State keeps the accused incompetent to testify under oath yet permits only an unsworn statement in his defense, the defendant cannot be denied the guiding hand of counsel at that critical point. The combination makes the privilege a trap unless counsel may question the accused to elicit an organized and coherent statement.