Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Gouveia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselSixth Amendmentright to counselattachmentadversary judicial proceedingspreindictment detention

Facts

Respondents were federal inmates suspected of murdering other inmates at Lompoc prison. Shortly after the murders, prison officials placed them in administrative detention and kept them there for extended periods while investigations continued; four respondents remained there about 19 months and two remained there about 8 months before indictment. During detention they were separated from the general population but retained visitation rights, exercise periods, access to legal materials, and unmonitored phone calls. Counsel was appointed only after indictment and arraignment, and respondents argued that the Sixth Amendment required appointed counsel during the preindictment detention period.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel for indigent inmates held in administrative detention before indictment while prison officials and investigators are investigating them for prison crimes. More specifically, does the right to counsel attach before formal adversary judicial proceedings have begun merely because the inmate is segregated during a felony investigation?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings, such as by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. It does not attach during preindictment administrative detention of prison inmates under investigation, even if that detention is lengthy and connected to a criminal investigation.

🔒

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.

At a state prison outside Toledo, Ohio, officials placed inmate Darnell Price in segregated housing after a fatal workshop fire while internal investigators and detectives looked into possible arson. He remained there for 11 months, repeatedly asked for appointed counsel, and was not formally charged until a grand jury later returned an indictment.

Was Darnell entitled to appointed counsel under the Sixth Amendment during the 11-month segregation period?

Explanation. The governing rule is that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings, such as formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. Administrative or investigative segregation before any such proceeding does not trigger the right, even if the detention is lengthy and connected to a criminal investigation. Concerns about prejudice from delay are addressed through other doctrines, not by expanding Sixth Amendment attachment. (Derived from United States v. Gouveia (1984).)