*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields - Campbell Law - Part 8

By Miller Moreau
Professor Fields - 2021

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 7 | Part 9 >>

II. Fifth Amendment: Interrogation, Confession, Pre-Trial ID a. Introduction—Right to Counsel

i. Powell v. Alabama (state case and 14th am had not yet applied to the 6th am to the states) Capital case “hurried to trial for a capital offense w/o effective appointment of counsel and w/o adequate opportunity to consult even the counsel casually appointed to represent them”

  1. Due process requires appointment of counsel for capital cases—where def is unable to employ counsel and is incapable adequately of making his own defense
  2. Did not apply 6th am to states, except in capital cases

ii. Johnson v. Zerbst (Federal case) Court ruled that the 6th am required courts to provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel in all serious criminal cases (at least all felony cases)

iii. Betts v. Brady (state case, non-capital offense): the 6th amendment right to counsel in all felony cases should not be applied to the states

  1. Right to counsel is not so fundamental and essential to a fair trial and to due process of law that it should be made obligatory upon the states by the 14th amendment
  2. Created test: In a non-capital case, defendant had to show specifically that he had been prejudiced by the absence of a lawyer or that special circumstances rendered criminal proceedings without attorney fundamentally unfair

iv. Gideon v. Wainwright (state case, non-capital case): Applies 6th amendment to states—all defendants in felony cases have the right to an attorney

  1. When to apply 6th am to states through 14th: When a provision of the bill of rights is fundamental and essential to a fair trial
  2. (Overruled Betts) Defense attorney is fundamental and essential to a fair trial

v. Argersinger: key to Gideon not misdemeanor vs. felony, but whether def was imprisoned

vi. Scott: states have no obligation to provide counsel to defendantss facing potential jail time—it’s actual imprisonment that’s the defining line for constitutional right to appointment of counsel

vii. Alabama v. Shelton: Can only sentence someone to suspended or probated imprisonment if he had defense counsel

  1. Key point: executing the punishment goes back to the underlying offense/trial that was adjudicated absent an attorney
  2. So what then is the remedy when these defendants are not provided with counsel?
b. When Does the Right to Counsel Begin?

i. Rothgery v. Gillespie County (TX probable cause hearing: PC determination made, bail set, def appraised of the accusations against him, indicted 6 months later and a lawyer then assigned to him): A criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the 6th am right to counsel

  1. Prior cases right to counsel attached at the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings (whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment)
    1. “the overwhelming consensus practice conforms to the rule that the first formal proceedings is the point of attachment”
c. When Does the Right to Counsel End?

i. Griffin v. Illinois: Indigent def must be provided trial transcripts at state expense if necessary to effectuate appellate review

  1. Imposes an affirmative duty to eliminate at least some inequalities not of the state’s own doing—level the playing field
    1. Black: “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has”

ii. Douglas v. California: Defendant has a right to counsel for first level appeal

  1. “but where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has of right are decided w/o benefit of counsel, we think an unconstitutional line has been drawn between right and poor”

iii. Ross v. Moffitt: No right to appointed counsel on discretionary appeals

  1. In trial, defendant needs an attorney as a shield, but on appeal, needs an attorney as a sword to “upset that prior determination of guilt” (Okay if states give this right, but not going to compel the states to do so)

iv. Right to counsel: Right to counsel for all felonies, both in federal and state court

  1. For misdemeanors, determined by whether there’s actual imprisonment. If yes, then right to counsel attached

v. When does right attach: initial appearance before magistrate

vi. When does right end: have right in first level appeal, then ends (no right in discretionary appeal)

d. Interrogations and confessions

i. Massiah v. US (whether Massiah’s statement to Colson amounted to a lawful confession): Defendant’s statement was not a lawful confession

  1. “petitioner was denied the basic protections of the 6th am when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel
  2. Once right to counsel attached, can’t question a suspect until they actively waive their right to counsel

*timing is key here: occurred after the right to an attorney (Gideon) had attached

ii. Escebedo v. Illinois: Where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations . . . The suspect has requested and denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel

  1. Pushing the line from Massiah (Massiah said a confession isn’t admissible if given w/o an attorney once the right to attorney attaches under Gideon, start of adversarial process)
  2. Here, court moves the right to counsel for purposes of interrogation to custodial interrogation—when the individual is a suspect and is being questioned with the intent to obtain a confession
  3. “petitioner had become the accused, and the purpose of the interrogation was to get him”
  4. Balance of individual liberty vs. Security
    1. “a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the confession will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independent secured through skillful investigation”
    2. “no system worth preserving should have to fear that if an accused is permitted to consult with a lawyer, he will become aware of, and exercise these rights

iii. Miranda v. Arizona: By its nature, a custodial interrogation is so coercive that an accused cannot voluntarily give a confession w/o law enforcement providing protective safeguards

  1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination
  2. Custodial interrogation: Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
  3. Protective safeguards:
    1. Right to remain silent
    2. Anything you say can and will be used against you
    3. Right to an attorney
    4. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided
  4. Miranda Rule: custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. Consequently, protective safeguards must be in place before anyone can voluntarily give a confession. Those safeguards are the Miranda warnings
Related Topics

The Charlotte lawyers at Powers Law Firm PA are dedicated to compassionate legal representation, predicated on superlative knowledge, trial skills, and conscientious advocacy.

The gift of a legal education extends beyond a fulfilling way to earn a living. Omni autem cui multum datum.

Bill Powers - Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com

Carolina Law Blog / Awards and Certifications

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.
★★★★★
Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.