Citation network
Douglas Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 18, 1963
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
U.S. 353 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 353 (1963) Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
People v. HydeSearch
-
would seem to be a discrimination at least as invidious as that condemned in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
People v. BrownSearch
-
Cal.2d 64, 71, 9 Cal.Rptr. 816, 357 P.2d 1072, 1076 (concurring opinion). In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
in such a way as to discriminate against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty. There, as in Draper v. WashingtonSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
lines can be and are drawn, and we often sustain them. See Tigner v. TexasSearch
-
afforded counsel on appeal whenever he challenges a certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
Coppedge v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 438 , 369 U. S. 449 . MR. JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting. I adhere to my vote in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
whether it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to the court to have counsel appointed. Unlike Lane v. BrownSearch
-
California's concern for the rights of indigents is clearly revealed in People v. HydeSearch
-
question here is, of course, the effectiveness of the appellate review which was unquestionably provided. In Lane v. BrownSearch
-
review under Indiana law. As to the fairness and effectiveness of the appellate review here as compared with Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Clause is, I submit, but to substitute resounding phrases for analysis. I dissented from this approach in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
to give to some whatever others can afford. Thus it should be apparent that the present case, as with Draper v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 487 , and Lane v. BrownSearch
-
so may the question of the right to appointed counsel at trial, and the Court's analysis of that right in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 , is wholly unnecessary. The short way to dispose of Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
whether or not counsel ought to be appointed denies to no one the right to appeal. This is not a case, like Burns v. OhioSearch
-
or statute bars all consideration of the merits of an appeal unless docketing fees are prepaid. Nor is it like Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
live up to the State Supreme Court's mandate. See, e.g., the discussion Page 372 U. S. 365 in People v. VigilSearch
-
held that in a case such as the one before us, there is an absolute right to the services of counsel at trial. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
constitutional footing. First, appellate review is in itself not required by the Fourteenth Amendment, McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
that the requirements of fair procedure are exhausted once an indigent has been given one appellate review. Cf. Lane v. BrownSearch
-
As recently as last Term, in Coppedge v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Draper v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Tigner v. TexasSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Unlike Lane v. BrownSearch
-
In Lane v. BrownSearch
-
and Lane v. BrownSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
of Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Burns v. OhioSearch
-
People v. VigilSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment, McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
Cf. Lane v. BrownSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial