Scott v. Illinois
Scott v. Illinois
440 U.S. 367 (1979)
I. Aubrey Scott was convicted of shoplifting merchandise valued at less than $150. The maximum penalty for such an offense is a $500 fine or one year in jail, or both. Scott objected that the state was required to provide council for him. The trial court affirmed. The appellate court affirmed. The state supreme court granted certiorari.
II.
Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the state provide the defendant counsel whenever imprisonment is a lawful penalty?
III.
No.
IV. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require only that indigent defendants be appointed counsel when imprisonment is actually imposed. There is doubt that the Sixth Amendment initially guaranteed more than simply the right of a defendant in criminal cases to employ counsel on Scott’s behalf. While precedence has extended the scope of this constitutional right, the Court reviewed cases such as Duncan v. Louisiana (1969) and Baldwin v. New York (1970) while recognizing the severity of imprisonment over other forms of punishment. These cases established that a defendant has a right to trial by jury whenever he faces the possibility of at least six months imprisonment. However, the Court stated that because the states deal with many more criminal cases than the federal courts, especially petty crimes, requiring counsel whenever a crime can result in imprisonment extends the right too far. Like the courts in Duncan and Baldwin, in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Court made a distinction between imprisonment and other forms of punishment. Argersinger held that an indigent defendant cannot be imprisoned if he has not been offered the assistance of counsel by the state. Actual imprisonment remains the proper line defining the constitutional right to counsel.
V.
Affirmed.
440 U.S. 367 (1979)
I. Aubrey Scott was convicted of shoplifting merchandise valued at less than $150. The maximum penalty for such an offense is a $500 fine or one year in jail, or both. Scott objected that the state was required to provide council for him. The trial court affirmed. The appellate court affirmed. The state supreme court granted certiorari.
II.
Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the state provide the defendant counsel whenever imprisonment is a lawful penalty?
III.
No.
IV. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require only that indigent defendants be appointed counsel when imprisonment is actually imposed. There is doubt that the Sixth Amendment initially guaranteed more than simply the right of a defendant in criminal cases to employ counsel on Scott’s behalf. While precedence has extended the scope of this constitutional right, the Court reviewed cases such as Duncan v. Louisiana (1969) and Baldwin v. New York (1970) while recognizing the severity of imprisonment over other forms of punishment. These cases established that a defendant has a right to trial by jury whenever he faces the possibility of at least six months imprisonment. However, the Court stated that because the states deal with many more criminal cases than the federal courts, especially petty crimes, requiring counsel whenever a crime can result in imprisonment extends the right too far. Like the courts in Duncan and Baldwin, in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Court made a distinction between imprisonment and other forms of punishment. Argersinger held that an indigent defendant cannot be imprisoned if he has not been offered the assistance of counsel by the state. Actual imprisonment remains the proper line defining the constitutional right to counsel.
V.
Affirmed.