[Criminal Procedure] 1.DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA

[Yunjeong]

1. DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA  372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814. 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963)

Facts

William Douglas and Bennie Will Meyes (Petitioners) were charged with 13 felonies. Because the petitioners were indigent, a public defender was appointed to them but due to his inability to proceed with the case, as he said he was not prepared for the present case, the petitioners dismissed the defender. Eventually, petitioners were convicted with all felonies charged and sentenced to prison.  By adhering to California rule of criminal procedure that presents the appellate court may appoint the counsel to the defendant only if it is found to be helpful after investigation of the record, the California District Court of Appeal denied petitioners request for assistance of counsel and affirmed the convictions. The petitioners then were seeking for a review in the California Supreme Court, but without being given a proper hearing, the petitions were denied.

Issue

Does an indigent defendant have an absolute right to appointed counsel in a state criminal case on the first appellate review?

Rules

Griffin v. Illinois

a State may not grant appellate review in such a way as to discriminate against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty.

Application

The petitioners argue that their request for assistance of attorney should be honored because it is protected under Fourteenth Amendment. The court acknowledges that the ability of the defendant’s payment for a counsel ultimately influences the decision of the District Court of Appeal’s reviewing the case. Because the appellate court only grants the case by first reading the written briefs and oral argument prepared by the counsel, if a party cannot afford a counsel, then the court is forced to prejudge the merits of the case without such. This indeed deprives a chance of revealing the hidden merit if the case is granted review which violates Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, according to Griffin v. Illinois, a State may not grant appellate review as to discriminate against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty. Therefore, to maintain fair criminal procedures, an indigent shall not be denied the assistance of counsel on appeal.

Holding

Yes, an indigent has an absolute right to appointed counsel.

Conclusion

Remanded.

Feedback and notes

Sixth amendment는 주된 내용은 right to attorney인데, 여기선 trial에서 자기들이 discharged한 뒤 다시 appointed 받지 못했다. 근데 왜 trial level이 아니라 appellate level을 문제 삼았는가? ⇨처음에 변호사를 붙여줬으니 trial level의 violated rights은 없다.

First appeal in criminal case는 mandatory이지만 연방도, 주도 supreme court는 discretionary이다. 그렇기에 first appeal에 대한 right을 논함.

계속 public defender를 바꾸며 제도를 악용할 수 있지 않을까? 새롭게 appointed 되는 과정에서 절차상 시간도 많이 들기 때문에 현실적으로 악용하기는 힘들 것 같다.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)라는 6th amend과 관련된 중요 케이스. 비슷한 시기에 결정됐음.  

… U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.