The Right to Counsel

The right to counsel during a criminal prosecution is a relatively recent development in constitutional law. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provided that an individual who is being accused may have the right to the "assistance of counsel for his defense" (Woll 568). This amendment was interpreted as meaning that the individual had the right to retain counsel. Yet, this right had major weaknesses. First was the fact that it was not binding on the state governments, which by far carry out most criminal prosecution. This inherent weakness left it up to the state's discretion to create its own rules about the appointment of counsel. Most states used varying measures, and essentially, counsel was appointed only in cases involving the most serious offenses and capital cases. The second weakness of the Sixth Amendment was its failure to provide counsel for indigents who, unable to retain a lawyer, were forced to go through the proceedings without benefit of skilled counsel. Obviously, this generally worked to their detriment.

The right to counsel is an evolutionary process. The ambiguity of the Sixth Amendment, its inapplicability to the states and its inherent flaw in relation to indigents' rights have made it a "hot potato" for the court. However, since 1932, the Supreme Court has recognized that the amendment requires that "(I)n the absence of effective waiver, the accused in all federal cases is entitled to have

. . .
rt's noncapital felony (Molder 51). Betts claimed that the denial was unconstitutional since the Sixth Amendment provided that all defendants would have the right to retain counsel in all criminal prosecutions. Betts emphasized that due process required an appointment for indigents who requested counsel. Maryland's counsel called for the status quo, as he explained that it would be difficult to find a workable principle to determine the distinction between capital and noncapital in which counsel would be required and those where it would not be (Beaney 161). By a six to three division the Supreme Court accepted Maryland's argument and opined that the idea of a fair trial did not require the appointment of counsel, except in special circumstances that involved complex issues or, in reference to Powell V. Alabama, where the individual was absolutely incapable of creating a viable defense as a result of his youth, illiteracy or other special circumstances. Further, the court persisted in its statement that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Sixth Amendment, and that it was only "in special circumstances or in connection with other elements" (Beaney 162) that to deny any part of the Bill of Rights was also to deny d
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
York Times, Powell Alabama, Betts Brady, Sixth Amendment, Supreme Court, Justice Sutherland, Fourteenth Amendment, United Constitution, Johnson Zerbst, Justice Black, due process, sixth amendment, york times, supreme court, process law, fourteenth amendment, betts brady, fair trial, due process law, special circumstances, times editorial, york times editorial, requisite due process, unable employ counsel, counsel requisite due,
Approximate Word count = 2390
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)

More Essays on The Right to Counsel