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.

Westbrook Vs. Arizona

Westbrook vs Arizona

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-02-1966
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101391

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
384 U.S. 150
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Westbrook

Respondent

Arizona

Excerpt

.....appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. "the constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused -- whose life or liberty is at stake -- is without counsel. this protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused." johnson v. zerbst, 304 u. s. 458 , 304 u. s. 465 ; carnley v. cochran, 369 u. s. 506 . page 384 u. s. 151 from an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this "protecting duty" was fulfilled should be reexamined in light of our decision this term in pate v. robinson, 383 u. s. 375 . accordingly, the judgment of the supreme court of arizona is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. it is so ordered.

Full Judgment

Westbrook v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 150 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966)

Westbrook v. Arizona

No. 1250 Misc.

Decided May 2, 1966

384 U.S. 150

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

SYLLABUS

The question whether, in the circumstances of this case, a hearing on the accused's competence to stand trial was sufficient to determine whether the trial judge had a further protecting duty should be reexamined in light of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 .

Certiorari granted; 99 Ariz. 30, 406 P.2d 388, vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense.

"The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused -- whose life or liberty is at stake -- is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused."

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 465 ; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506 .

Page 384 U. S. 151

From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this "protecting duty" was fulfilled should be reexamined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 . Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial