Powell v. Alabama - Case Study Example

Most of the local bar despite the order of the court withdrew from the case. Two attorneys did appear on behalf on the accused but the appearance could be described as superfluous at best because the attorneys had no opportunity to investigate the case and consulted with the defendants for only thirty minutes prior to the trials. Not surprisingly, eight of the defendants were convicted and sentenced to death after quick trials. There was a hung jury in the case of the remaining defendant. The lower court argued that each state is its' own sovereign and that accordingly, each state has the right to decide what it will and will not give to its' indigent defendants.

One does not have an absolute right to counsel in the state system and a state cannot be ordered to pay for the defense of it's defendants. In one hundred and forty years, the legal governance of the states has never been interfered with, so why should it happen now The decision of the lower state court was reversed and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. Ultimately the court held that the fundamental due process rights of the defendants had been violated. The court found that fundamental due process rights carry both into the state court and the federal courts.

One's due pro One's due process rights do not drop simply because there is a change in venue. Due to the lack of counsel the defendants were not granted a fair and impartial trial. Indeed, the entire proceedings were found to be deliberately contrived so as not to afford the defendants an impartial jury. Blacks were systematically not picked for the jury. The defendants were unable to prepare with their attorneys and finally were not even asked if they wanted attorneys. Supreme Court Decision1.

The rule denying the aid of counsel to persons charged with felony, which (except as to legal questions) existed in England. Page 287 U. S. 462. The rule that no part of the Constitution shall be treated as superfluous is an aid to construction which, in some instances, may be conclusive, but which must yield to more compelling considerations whenever they exist. P. 287 U. S. 67.3. The fact that the right of an accused person to have counsel for his defense was guaranteed expressly (as respects the federal Government) by the Sixth Amendment, notwithstanding the presence of the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment, does not exclude that right from the concept "due process of law." Pp. 287 U. S. 66-68.4. The right of the accused, at least in a capital case, to have the aid of counsel for his defense, which includes the right to have sufficient time to advise with counsel and to prepare a defense, is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 287 U. S. 68-71.5. In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable of making his own defense adequately 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 and under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial