287 U.S. 45 (1932)
The petitioners, nine young negro men from other states who were ignorant and illiterate, were charged with raping two white girls on a freight train traveling through Alabama on March 25, 1931.1 The indictment was returned in a state court of first instance on March 31, 1931, and the defendants were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty the same day.2
The defendants were tried in three separate groups beginning April 6, 1931, with each trial completed in a single day.3 Juries found the defendants guilty and imposed the death penalty on all eight who were convicted.4 The trial court overruled motions for new trials and sentenced the defendants accordingly, after which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, with Chief Justice Anderson dissenting.5
A sheriff's posse seized the defendants before the train reached Scottsboro, and they were taken there amid a large hostile crowd.6 The sheriff called for militia assistance, and soldiers guarded the defendants at every stage from arrest through trial, while the defendants remained closely confined.7
No counsel had been employed by the defendants.8 The trial judge had previously appointed all members of the local bar only for arraignment purposes.9 The matter of representation was resolved in a brief colloquy that resulted in local lawyers agreeing to help in a limited way.10
On the morning the first case was called for trial, a Tennessee lawyer who had not been employed and was unfamiliar with Alabama procedure appeared informally and requested to assist appointed local counsel.11 The trials proceeded immediately after this arrangement, with no prior opportunity for investigation or preparation by any counsel.12 After the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, the cases reached the United States Supreme Court.13
Whether the defendants were denied the right of counsel with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity of preparation for trial?14
In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable adequately of making his own defense 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 or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.15
Yes. The defendants were young, ignorant, and illiterate residents of other states whose families and friends lived far away and could not readily assist. They faced capital rape charges amid an atmosphere of tense, hostile, and excited public sentiment, with military guards escorting them at every stage and keeping them closely confined. No counsel had been employed, and the trial court's prior appointment of all local bar members was limited solely to arraignment purposes with no definite individual assignment made until the morning of trial.16
The informal colloquy produced only a limited agreement by local counsel to assist an out-of-state lawyer unfamiliar with Alabama procedure, after which the trials began immediately with no opportunity for investigation or preparation.17 These specific facts demonstrate that the defendants were denied the effective assistance of counsel required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.18
The defendants were denied the right of counsel in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so the judgments must be reversed.19
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Mcreynolds
Justice Butler maintained that the record fails to show any denial of counsel or opportunity to prepare. He emphasized that appointed counsel had prepared and submitted a motion for change of venue with supporting evidence, conducted rigorous cross-examination of the state's witnesses, and introduced testimony regarding the ages of two defendants. No application for postponement was made at trial or in the original motion for new trial.
The claim of inadequate representation first appeared only in an amended motion filed by successor counsel, without any supporting statement from the original attorneys. Justice Butler concluded that the petitioners had not been deprived of any right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and that the judgments should be affirmed.20