Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dejoseph Vs. Connecticut.

Dejoseph vs Connecticut.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-16-1966
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101350

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
385 U.S. 982
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dejoseph

Respondent

Connecticut.

Excerpt

.....the petitioner again indicated that he wanted counsel, but his request was ignored by the trial judge. he attempted to conduct his own defense, and was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail. the conviction was affirmed by the appellate division of the connecticut circuit court. that court noted that the petitioner had failed to request findings on the issue of his indigency, as required by local practice rules, and held that without more proof of indigency he could not claim that he had been deprived of any right to appointed counsel. clearly, constitutional claims cannot be blocked by such procedural obstacles, in a case where the defendant, appearing alone in court, saw his requests for counsel denied outright by one judge and totally ignored by another. the petitioner's conviction in this case is squarely at odds with the decision of the federal district court for the district of connecticut in arbo v. hegstrom, page 385 u.s. 982 , 983 261 f.supp. 397 (civil no. 11,340, decided june 16, 1966). arbo was charged in connecticut with criminal nonsupport, the identical offense with which the petitioner here was charged and convicted. unlike the petitioner, arbo pleaded guilty and never requested that counsel be appointed for him. nevertheless, the federal district judge held that gideon guaranteed arbo the right to appointed counsel. arbo's conviction was set aside because he had not been told of his right to counsel, and the state has not appealed. arbo was set free. the petitioner, convicted of the same offense in the same state, remains in jail. when the meaning of a fundamental constitutional right depends on which court in connecticut a person turns to for redress, i believe it is time for this court to intervene. i would grant certiorari and set this case for argument.

Full Judgment

DEJOSEPH v. CONNECTICUT. - 385 U.S. 982 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court DEJOSEPH v. CONNECTICUT. , 385 U.S. 982 (1966)

385 U.S. 982

John De JOSEPH, petitioner,
v.
CONNECTICUT.
No. 759, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

December 5, 1966

William D. Graham, for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut and/or the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of Connecticut denied. Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Stewart with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas join.

This case illustrates, in even more compelling terms than Winters v. Beck, 385 U.S. 907 , the need for this Court to make clear the meaning of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 .

The petitioner was charged in a Connecticut court with criminal nonsupport, a misdemeanor under Connecticut law punishable by imprisonment of up to a year. At his arraignment he told the judge that he was indigent, and requested that counsel be appointed. The judge informed him that appointment of counsel was not possible because the charge was only a misdemeanor. At trial, the petitioner again indicated that he wanted counsel, but his request was ignored by the trial judge. He attempted to conduct his own defense, and was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Connecticut Circuit Court. That court noted that the petitioner had failed to request findings on the issue of his indigency, as required by local practice rules, and held that without more proof of indigency he could not claim that he had been deprived of any right to appointed counsel. Clearly, constitutional claims cannot be blocked by such procedural obstacles, in a case where the defendant, appearing alone in court, saw his requests for counsel denied outright by one judge and totally ignored by another.

The petitioner's conviction in this case is squarely at odds with the decision of the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut in Arbo v. Hegstrom,

Page 385 U.S. 982 , 983

261 F.Supp. 397 (Civil No. 11,340, decided June 16, 1966). Arbo was charged in Connecticut with criminal nonsupport, the identical offense with which the petitioner here was charged and convicted. Unlike the petitioner, Arbo pleaded guilty and never requested that counsel be appointed for him. Nevertheless, the Federal District Judge held that Gideon guaranteed Arbo the right to appointed counsel. Arbo's conviction was set aside because he had not been told of his right to counsel, and the State has not appealed.

Arbo was set free. The petitioner, convicted of the same offense in the same State, remains in jail. When the meaning of a fundamental constitutional right depends on which court in Connecticut a person turns to for redress, I believe it is time for this Court to intervene. I would grant certiorari and set this case for argument.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial