Also known as: assistance-of-counsel · right to counsel · effective assistance of counsel
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional guarantee that entitles a criminal defendant to representation by an attorney during all criminal prosecutions. The guarantee attaches upon the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings and extends to critical stages where counsel's presence is necessary to preserve the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense.
Abigail Alvarez faced a zoning citation carrying up to one year in jail for repeated passenger pickups in a restricted transit zone. The municipal court conducted a brief bench trial without offering her a jury or providing appointed counsel. Alvarez was convicted after the hearing. The conviction cannot stand because the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was denied in a criminal prosecution exposing her to imprisonment.
Antonio Alvarado was arrested and clearly told officers he wanted counsel before any further questioning. The next day a different detective visited him in jail and resumed interrogation about the same offense without providing an attorney. Alvarado made additional statements during that session. Those statements are inadmissible because police reinitiated questioning after the invocation of the right to counsel.
Alice Atkins was charged with falsifying energy rebate applications. Her appointed defender never interviewed technicians or obtained work-order logs showing others had access to the system. The jury convicted Atkins after a one-sided presentation of the state's evidence. The conviction is vulnerable because counsel's failure to investigate readily available exculpatory material undermined the adversarial process.
Adrian Aguilar was shown a single company photograph two days after a server-room intrusion. The witness identified Aguilar from that photo and later from a live lineup. Aguilar moved to suppress the identifications on Sixth Amendment grounds. The motion fails because photo identifications are not a critical stage requiring the presence of counsel.
Ava Adebayo insisted her lawyer present testimony she knew to be false at her theft trial. Counsel refused to elicit the perjured statements and informed the court of the ethical conflict. Adebayo was convicted after the jury heard only truthful evidence. The conviction stands because counsel's refusal to assist perjury does not violate the right to effective assistance.
Alan Ackerman was taken to a ranger station room and questioned for thirty minutes about suspected illegal dumping. Officers obtained incriminating statements without advising him of his rights. Ackerman moved to suppress the statements. The statements must be excluded because the custodial interrogation occurred without the warnings that protect the right to counsel.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
The right attaches upon the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings such as indictment or arraignment. Once attached it extends to all critical stages of the prosecution where counsel's presence is necessary to protect the defendant's interests.
Supporting sources
…. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel"—rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in…
…laws it will permit state legislatures to enact. Gideon in applying to state prosecutions the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel followed Palko v. Connecticut , 302 U. S. 319, which had held that specific provisions of the Bill of Rights, rather than the Bill of Rights as a whole, would be selectively applied to the…
…the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceeding as are those constitutional safeguards applied in Gault notice of charges, right to counsel, the rights of confrontation and examination, and the privilege against self-incrimination. We therefore hold, in agreement with Chief Judge Fuld in dissent in the Court of Appeals, "that,…
…agency, Congress is not bound by established substantive rules. Nor is it subject to the procedural safeguards, such as the right to counsel
No. Photo arrays are not considered a critical stage requiring the presence of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The procedure may still be challenged on due process grounds if it is unnecessarily suggestive.
Supporting sources
Counsel must first attempt to dissuade the client from committing perjury. If unsuccessful counsel may refuse to present the false testimony and may disclose the perjury to the court as a remedial measure consistent with ethical rules.
Supporting sources
Effective assistance is presumed unless counsel's specific errors so undermine the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon to have produced a just result. Ineffective assistance claims ordinarily require a showing of particular deficient acts rather than general assertions about counsel's experience or preparation time.
Supporting sources
Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the right to counsel police must cease interrogation. They may not reinitiate questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect himself initiates further communication and validly waives the right.
Supporting sources