In the case of Mempa v. Rhay, which the accused pleaded guilty with the advice of court-appointed counsel to the crime of "joyriding" and was placed on probation for two years. Then soon after the sentence was deferred because he was involved in a burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison but only would receive 1 year with the advice from the parole. This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement. The offender filed a petition of habeas corpus in the State Supreme Court claiming that he had been denied the right to counsel during the probation revocation hearing, the court denied the petition. In later years the offender reoffended and convicted of second degree burglary and then placed on probation, while on probation he was arrested for forgery and grand larceny. Again at the revocation hearing the defendant had council but never showed but the proceedings still took place. The defendant filed another writ of habeas corpus in the State Supreme Court claiming that he had been denied the right to counsel, the Supreme Court stated that "any indigent is entitled at every stage of a criminal proceeding to be represented by court-appointed counsel, where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected." Moreover, the Supreme Court considered the legal interests of the probationers and decided that a probation revocation hearing constituted a "critical stage" which dictated adherence to due process protections. I agree with the court’s decision. I believe that counsel should always be present in any legal proceeding due the complexities of laws. Also, counsel also helps prevent against defendants being taken advantage of and mislead into believing something that’s not entirely fact. The only real way to get a fair trial is to be fairly represented in law. Source:
In the proceedings of Gagnon v....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document