HomeCase briefs › Criminal Procedure

Powell v. Alabama

Supreme Court of the United States · 1932 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureConstitutional LawSixth Amendmentright to counseldue processcapital casesFourteenth Amendmentdue process

Facts

Defendants were young, ignorant, illiterate, nonresident men charged with rape, a capital offense under Alabama law because the jury could impose death. The proceedings occurred in an atmosphere of hostile and excited public sentiment, with the defendants under close military guard from arrest through trial. Although the trial judge had generally "appointed all the members of the bar" for arraignment, no specific lawyer was definitely designated to represent defendants until the morning of trial, and the trials began immediately, leaving no real chance for consultation, investigation, or preparation. Each trial was completed in a single day, and all defendants were sentenced to death.

Issue

Whether, in these capital prosecutions, the defendants were denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when they were not given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel and the trial court failed to make an effective appointment of counsel in time for preparation and trial. More specifically, the question was whether the denial of the assistance of counsel under these circumstances violated due process of law.

Rule

In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, due process of law requires the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him. That duty is not satisfied by an appointment made at such a time or under such circumstances as to prevent counsel from giving effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case. A defendant also must be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Birmingham, Alabama, 18-year-old Darius Cole was charged with a capital offense carrying a possible death sentence. Darius was indigent, barely literate, and had no lawyer; the trial judge appointed attorney Ellen Pike thirty minutes before jury selection and denied her request for a one-week continuance to investigate and consult with him.

Under the majority's rule, was Darius denied due process?

Explanation. Due process was denied. The majority held that in a capital case, where an indigent defendant cannot adequately defend himself because of ignorance, illiteracy, feeble-mindedness, or similar incapacity, the court must assign counsel whether requested or not. That duty is not discharged by an appointment made at such a time or under such circumstances as to prevent effective aid in preparation and trial. A lawyer appointed thirty minutes before trial, with no opportunity to investigate or consult meaningfully, is only a nominal appointment.