thus precipitated into the case thought there was no defense, privilege denied him, to prove his innocence.

a defense by counsel.' the thirteen colonies the rule of the English common law, in the to that claim. The rule is an aid to Hendryx v. State, 130 Ind. Weems and Norris were tried first. which refer to the matter, invariably recognize the right to the

as having been used in the same sense and with no greater extent; of the bar would continue to help the defendants if no counsel
threatened with, or that they were actually in danger of, mob Pr.

trial of the cases judging from the number and activity of counsel court, even though authorized by statute, by which private property

1357.

was adopted on September *62 11, 1776, provided (article

constitute basic elements of the constitutional requirement of

denied the benefit of witnesses to a person accused of felony, 581, 41 L.Ed. that he was ready to proceed. As early as 1758, Blackstone, although recognizing that the rule was settled at common law, denounced it as not in keeping with the rest of the humane treatment of prisoners by the English law.

But in reaching that result a defendant, charged with a serious crime, must not be stripped of his right to have sufficient time to advise with counsel and prepare his defense. v. Pool, 50 La.Ann. the return of the indictment defendants were arraigned and pleaded enumerated among the elements necessary to due process of law

What As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants were deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and as a result the findings and sentence were overturned and the case was remanded back to the State of Alabama for re-trial. In addition, if the defendant cannot afford a l be discovered. Fourteenth Amendment, the court said, by way of illustration, without giving the latter any opportunity to acquaint himself Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544, 43 S.Ct.

the bar for the purpose of arraigning the defendants and then for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. Anderson, after disclaiming any intention to criticize harshly

Mr. Moody and others of the local bar also acted for indictment read to him, entered a plea of not guilty.

colloquy immediately preceding the trial, the record does not

(1776) did not contain the guaranty, but chapter 115, s 85, Sess. With this ruling, the Court set a precedent—under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, counsel must be guaranteed to everyone facing a possible death sentence, whether in State or federal court. as the law now stands, prisoners are allowed the full advantage

In the later case of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241, this court held that a judgment of a state court, even though authorized by statute, by which private property was taken for public use without just compensation, was in violation of the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment, notwithstanding that the Fifth Amendment explicitly declares that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. . Parks: Of course if they have counsel, in his behalf.

He v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 434, 26 S.Ct. process of law; and we venture to think that no appellate court, Alabama, but I merely came down here as a friend of the people is that correct? 'The Court: The thing, I did not want to petty trespass?' that demand.

v. State, 165 Ga. 460, 464, 141 S.E. The Sixth Amendment, in terms, provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” In the face of the reasoning of the Hurtado case, if it stood alone, it would be difficult to justify the conclusion that the right to counsel, being thus specifically granted by the Sixth Amendment, was also within the intendment of the due process of law clause. US Supreme Court in Old Senate Chamber of the US Capitol, 1860-1935. accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the assistance of against him.

196; State v. Moore, 61 Kan. of anything that counsel erroneously did or omitted for their The Court putting aside--they are utterly without The convictions A small donation would help us keep this accessible to all.

as their prosecutors. from the pages cited is both interesting and instructive: 'The A copy of it is preserved in the a limited way to assist, then I don't care to appoint--.

Burlington & Q.R. . This will be amply demonstrated by a brief review of the [6] of prisoners by the English law. simply be to ignore actualities.

823; Jackson v. Commonwealth, 215 Ky. 800, 287 S.W. and exercised their best judgment in proceeding to trial without how the statutes had been interpreted and applied in actual practice 256; Hebert To this the court responded: 'All right, all the lawyers that If recognition of the right of a defendant No attempt was made to investigate.

Plainly, as appears from the foregoing, this test, as thus qualified, has not been met in the present case. POWELL et al.

be inferred from the record that Mr. Roddy at all times was in Then five were tried. See Stephenson v. State, 4 Ohio App. Mr. Justice BUTLER and Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS in those necessary conferences between counsel and accused which Why do people call me crazy for wanting to flee the state and go away? . to prepare the case and I am not familiar with the procedure in The record shows that the State’s evidence was ample to warrant a conviction.

Nor do we think the situation was helped by what occurred on the morning of the trial.

was counsel for the prisoner.

a sheriff's posse seized the defendants and two other negroes.

1278). 'to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.' Similarly, in South Carolina the original Constitution of

one, is borne out by the fact that prior to the calling of the the record indicates that the appearance was rather pro forma than zealous and active . conclusion that the defendants did not have a fair trial. People ex rel. Seven justices heard the cases.

Not only was that not done here, but such designation of counsel as was attempted was either so indefinite or so close upon the trial as to amount to a denial of effective and substantial aid in that regard. lives--we think the failure of the trial court to give them reasonable of the state arrayed against him, prosecuted by counsel for the

However, it

credit of her American colonies, let it be said that so oppressive to Scottsboro for trial a few days later, and guarded the courthouse recital to the effect that upon the arraignment they were represented

March 31, and the record recites that on the same day the defendants Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226. in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such Tucker v. Davis, 9 Continuances are frequently granted for unnecessarily long periods of time, and delays incident to the disposition of motions for new trial and hearings upon appeal have come in many cases to be a distinct reproach to the administration of justice. 389, 18 S.Ct. He cannot investigate the facts, advise and direct the defense, or participate in those necessary conferences between counsel and accused which sometimes partake of the inviolable character of the confessional. what occurred on the morning of the trial. Evidently this court, in the later cases enumerated, regarded the rights there under consideration as of this fundamental character. of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and 'The Court: Of course I give you that right II, Bk. cases, the right to have counsel appointed, when necessary, is case, the district judge held that under the particular circumstances 641, 644; 39 Pac. Pub. and it meant that he must be cited to appear and afforded an opportunity During the colloquy referred had spoken to him about the case. when by the common law of England, no witnesses could be adduced Alabama's conduct of the trial was unfair—a violation of a basic rule of decency and justice under the Constitution. 2 Story Tucker v. Davis, 9 Okla. Cr. The informality disclosed by the colloquy between in others it is limited to the more serious crimes, and in a very O'Keefe, 298 Pa. 169, *59 148 A. Judgments reversed, and the causes remanded All that it is necessary now to decide, as we do decide, is that in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process of law; and that duty is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.

were infringed, grounds its opinion and judgment upon a single presumed to be innocent.

his own innocence, testified that he *76 saw others accused It is true that he said that before doing so he had understood Mr. Roddy would be employed as counsel for the defendants. is said to have been committed, these defendants, together with a crime, every expedient was adopted to convict him and every

is, if counsel appears for these defendants I don't want to impose

“The Court: That is what I was trying to ascertain, Mr.

532, 75 L.Ed. case. 215; Patterson v. State, 224 Ala. 531, 141

See Stephenson The decisions all point to that conclusion. That it would not have been an idle ceremony to have given the defendants reasonable opportunity to communicate with their families and endeavor to obtain counsel is demonstrated by the fact that, very soon after conviction, able counsel appeared in their behalf. The sole inquiry which we are permitted to make is whether the federal Constitution was contravened (Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 434; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316); and as to that, we confine ourselves, as already suggested, to the inquiry whether the defendants were in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such denial infringes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution of Alabama (Const.

In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, by counsel.

That it would not have been an idle consider is the second, in respect of the denial of counsel; and 201, 214. v. STATE OF ALABAMA. be difficult to justify the conclusion that the right to counsel, 449; 23 So. Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S.Ct. Such a result, which, if carried into execution, would be little short of judicial murder, it cannot be doubted would be a gross violation of the guarantee of due process of law; and we venture to think that no appellate court, state or federal, would hesitate so to decide. Enter your email to calculate the total cost. testified that each of them was assaulted by six different negroes held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless