316 U.S. 455 (1942)
In April 1939 Smith Betts, an indigent man, was indicted for robbery in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Maryland.1
On the day the indictment was returned, Betts told the court he wished to be tried without a jury and requested appointment of counsel because he had no money to hire a lawyer.2 The trial judge declined to appoint counsel, explaining that it was not the practice in the county to do so except in prosecutions for murder and rape, but stated that the court would ensure a fair trial.3
The trial took place on April 28, 1939.4 The State called two witnesses: the robbery victim, who identified Betts as the gunman who took his watch and money, and a second witness who placed Betts near the scene shortly before the crime and in possession of a watch matching the one stolen.5 Betts testified that he had never been in the county where the crime occurred and that he was in Delaware at the time, but he called no other witnesses and was not cross-examined.6 The judge found Betts guilty and sentenced him to eight years in the penitentiary.7
Without seeking a new trial or direct appeal, Betts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied.8 He then filed a similar petition in the Supreme Court of the United States, which was also denied.9 Betts next petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the state court's refusal to appoint counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment.10 The district court dismissed the petition.11
On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.13 Separately, Betts had also presented a habeas corpus petition to Chief Judge Carroll T. Bond of the Maryland Court of Appeals; after a hearing on an agreed statement of facts that incorporated the trial transcript, Judge Bond denied relief and remanded Betts to custody.14
Whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions applies to trials in state courts by incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?15
No. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies only to trials in federal courts.18 Betts was indicted for robbery and tried in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Maryland, a state court proceeding.19 The Court determined that the Due Process Clause does not make the specific Sixth Amendment guarantee obligatory upon the states regardless of circumstances.20
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel does not apply to state court trials through the Fourteenth Amendment.21
Whether the refusal of a state trial court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with robbery deprived the defendant of liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment?22
No. The right to counsel is not fundamental in every case.25 Betts was a man of ordinary intelligence who had prior experience with criminal procedure.26 The trial involved a simple issue of identification versus alibi.27 Betts examined witnesses and presented his defense without apparent handicap.28 The Court concluded that the refusal to appoint counsel did not render the trial offensive to fundamental fairness under the Fourteenth Amendment.29
The refusal to appoint counsel did not deprive Betts of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Douglas And Murphy
Justice Black dissented on the ground that the right to counsel is fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment to make it applicable to the states.31 He argued that the refusal to appoint counsel for Betts, an ignorant and penniless defendant, deprived him of due process under the prevailing standards of fairness.32 Justice Black maintained that denial of counsel to an indigent defendant in a serious criminal case subjects innocent persons to increased dangers of conviction merely because of poverty.33
He maintained that the trial of Betts without counsel was offensive to common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment in such circumstances.34
Whether the judgment of a single Maryland judge exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction constitutes a final judgment of the highest state court in which a decision could be had within the meaning of section 237 of the Judicial Code?35
Yes. Judge Bond as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland acted in a judicial capacity with power under the state constitution and statutes to hear and finally decide the habeas corpus petition.38 His order denying relief was not reviewable by any other Maryland court and therefore constituted a final judgment within the meaning of section 237 of the Judicial Code permitting Supreme Court review.39
The judgment of Judge Bond was a final judgment reviewable by the Supreme Court on certiorari.40