Citation network
Argersinger Vs. Hamlin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1972
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. 25 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
U.S. 25 (1972) Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Court, by a four-to-three decision, in ruling on the right to counsel, followed the line we marked out in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
in enumerated situations, has been made applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment ( see Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Still another, the right of confrontation. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
supra. And another, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one's favor. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
supra. We have never limited these rights to felonies or to lesser but serious offenses. In Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Junker, The Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases, 43 Wash.L.Rev. 685, 705 (1968). District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
The right to trial by jury, also guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment by reason of the Fourteenth, was limited by Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
trials where the potential punishment was imprisonment for six months or more. But, as the various opinions in Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
of the right in petty offenses wherein the common law previously did require that counsel be provided. See James v. HeadleySearch
-
lawyer. The assistance of counsel is often a requisite to the very existence of a fair trial. The Court in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
In Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
supra (overruling Betts v. BradySearch
-
for a brief period are any less complex than when a person can be sent off for six months or more. See, e.g., Powell v. TexasSearch
-
Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
of imprisonment may be imposed, the cases often bristle with thorny constitutional questions. See Papachristou v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
the guiding hand of counsel Page 407 U. S. 34 at every step in the proceedings against him,' citing Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
of liberty is not involved, however, for here, petitioner was, in fact, sentenced to jail. And, as we said in Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
That is the view of the Supreme Court of Oregon, with which we agree. It said, in Stevenson v. HolzmanSearch
-
The Impact of Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
in most misdemeanor cases. Id. at 124-133. One of these is Oregon, whose Supreme Court said, in Stevenson v. HolzmanSearch
-
California's requirement extends to traffic violations. Blake v. MunicipalSearch
-
James v. HeadleySearch
-
Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
But, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted in James v. HeadleySearch
-
See Marston v. OliverSearch
-
in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief. CLEPR Newsletter, May 1972, p. 3. See United States v. SimpsonSearch
-
an evolving concept. The constitutional requirements with respect to the issue have dated in recent times from Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 45 (1932), to Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
impeachment. MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, concurring in the result. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
The state court, in drawing a six-month line, followed the lead of this Court in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 145 (1968), and in the subsequent case of Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
counsel must be similarly restricted. The Court's opinions in Duncan, Baldwin, and District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
counsel does not mysteriously evaporate when he is charged with an offense punishable by six months or less. In Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Losing one's driver's license is more serious for some individuals than a brief stay in jail. In Bell v. BursonSearch
-
serve as an example of what today's ruling will mean in some localities. In November, 1971, the petition in Wright v. TownSearch
-
Such a rule is similar in certain respects to the special circumstances rule applied to felony cases in Betts v. BradySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial