Citation network
Middendorf Vs. Henry
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 1976
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 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. HenrySearch
-
U.S. 25 (1976) Middendorf v. HenrySearch
-
Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the ease for reconsideration in the light of its opinion in Daigle v. WarnerSearch
-
due process right in every case in which a military defendant might be imprisoned, but that, in line with Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
for Sixth Amendment purposes, Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
of military personnel and thus consuming military resources to an unwarranted degree. See United States ex rel. Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
accused who feels that counsel is essential in the situation envisaged by the Court of Appeals in reliance on Daigle v. WarnerSearch
-
whether Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23, providing for class actions, is applicable to petitions for habeas corpus, see Harris v. NelsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the District Court, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court of Appeals' opinion in Daigle v. WarnerSearch
-
due process right to counsel in every case in which a military defendant might be imprisoned. However, citing Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
officer, is an administrative Page 425 U. S. 32 method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. LevySearch
-
and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. CovertSearch
-
not, by itself, even in civilian, life mean that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is applicable. In Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
difference between the diverse civilian community and the much more tightly regimented military community in Parker v. LevySearch
-
which we Page 425 U. S. 41 extended to petty offenses in Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
U. S. 25 (1972). Argersinger relied on Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
proceedings such as this, but applying the due process standards of the Fifth Amendment adopted a standard from Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
that counsel should not be provided in summary courts-martial. As we held in Burns v. WilsonSearch
-
that Argersinger is applicable to the military and requires counsel at summary courts-martial. United States v. AldermanSearch
-
U. S. 45 We first consider the effect of providing counsel at summary courts-martial. As we observed in Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
As we observed in United States ex rel. Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
However, the Court of Appeals did not find counsel necessary in all proceedings but only, pursuant to Daigle v WarnerSearch
-
decision, daily faced by civilian criminal defendants, to plead guilty to a lesser included offense. E.g., Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
system, is replete with situations requiring 'the making of difficult judgments' as to which course to follow. McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
Together with No. 74-5176, Henry et al. v. MiddendorfSearch
-
exhaustion requirement is designed to protect the military from undue interference by the federal courts, Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
the military can waive that requirement where it feels that review in the federal courts is necessary. See Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
the original intent of the Framers was to apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the military. Compare Daigle v. WarnerSearch
-
F.2d 358 (CA9 1973), with Betonie v. SizemoreSearch
-
but the right to jury trial, which is likewise guaranteed by that Amendment, would come with it. While, under Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Chief Judge Darden, dissenting in United States v. AldermanSearch
-
As we held in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to members of the military is well established. Concurring in United States v. CulpSearch
-
United States v. JacobySearch
-
U. S. 71 -72, that the same result would obtain with such a two-tier system in the civilian context, where Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1963), and Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
have held the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applicable. In such a context, the reasoning of United States v. JacksonSearch
-
I join it. I write separately to emphasize the factor which, in my view, distinguishes this case from Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
Ibid. Only last Term, in Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker v. LevySearch
-
In Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
to the same protection our Constitution affords a civilian defendant facing even a day's imprisonment. See Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial