Wood v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1981 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsdue processconflict of interestthird-party-paid counselprobation revocationright to counselduty to inquireGagnon v. Scarpelli

Facts

Petitioners were low-level employees convicted of distributing obscene materials, fined substantial amounts, and placed on probation conditioned on monthly installment payments toward the fines. After they failed to make any payments for three months, probation officers sought revocation, and at the hearing petitioners showed they could not pay from their own earnings and said they had expected their employer to pay the fines. The same lawyer had represented all petitioners since arrest, and petitioners testified that the lawyer was provided by their employer, which also had promised legal assistance, bonds, and payment of fines. Although the employer had paid bonds and some other fines, it did not pay the fines in these cases, and the trial court revoked probation after petitioners failed to cure the arrearage within five days.

Issue

When the record in a probation revocation proceeding reveals that defendants are represented by counsel provided by an employer whose interests may diverge from theirs, does due process require the court to inquire into a possible conflict of interest rather than proceed without further examination? More specifically, was the apparent conflict serious enough here to require a remand for findings on whether petitioners were denied conflict-free representation?

Rule

Due process protections apply to probation revocation proceedings. Where a constitutional right to counsel exists, there is a correlative right to representation free from conflicts of interest, and when the possibility of a conflict of interest is sufficiently apparent from the record, the court has a duty to inquire further; if an actual conflict existed and there was no valid waiver of independent counsel, a new revocation hearing is required.

🔒

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 Birmingham, three warehouse clerks are on probation after misdemeanor convictions, with probation conditioned on monthly payments toward their fines. At a revocation hearing, they appear with one lawyer supplied by their employer, a fictional company called Red Clay Distribution. The record shows Red Clay had promised legal defense, bond money, and payment of work-related fines, paid some earlier expenses, but refused to pay these fines, while counsel argues only a broad constitutional challenge and does not ask for modification or leniency.

What is the strongest argument that the revocation court violated the probationers' federal rights?

Explanation. The majority held that due process applies to probation revocation proceedings and that where a constitutional right to counsel exists, there is a correlative right to conflict-free representation. When the possibility of conflict is sufficiently apparent from the record—especially where counsel is supplied by a third party whose interests may diverge from the probationers' interests—the court has a duty to inquire further. The rule is not that all third-party-paid counsel are forbidden, nor that poverty alone resolves the case.