Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Over time the Court abandoned the special circumstances
language of Powell v. Alabama 1 when capital cases were involved and finally in Hamilton v. Alabama ,2 held that in a capital case a defendant need make no showing of particularized need or of prejudice resulting from absence of counsel; henceforth, assistance of counsel was a constitutional requisite in capital cases. In non-capital cases, developments were such that Justice Harlan could assert that the ‘special circumstances’ rule has continued to exist in form while its substance has been substantially and steadily eroded.
3 The rule was designed to afford some certainty in the determination of when failure to appoint counsel would result in a trial lacking in fundamental fairness.
Generally, the Court developed three categories of prejudicial factors, often overlapping in individual cases, which required the furnishing of assistance of counsel. There were (1) the personal characteristics of the defendant which made it unlikely he could obtain an adequate defense of his own,4 (2) the technical complexity of the charges or of possible defenses to the charges,5 and (3) events occurring at trial that raised problems of prejudice.6 The last characteristic especially had been used by the Court to set aside convictions occurring in the absence of counsel,7 and the last case rejecting a claim of denial of assistance of counsel had been decided in 1950.8
Against this background, a unanimous Court in Gideon v. Wainwright 9 overruled Betts v. Brady and held that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.
10 Justice Black, a dissenter in the 1942 decision, asserted for the Court that Betts was an abrupt break
with earlier precedents, citing Powell and Johnson v. Zerbst . Rejecting the Betts reasoning, the Court decided that the right to assistance of counsel is fundamental
and the Fourteenth Amendment does make the right constitutionally required in state courts.11 The Court’s opinion in Gideon left unanswered the question whether the right to assistance of counsel could be claimed by defendants charged with misdemeanors or serious misdemeanors as well as with felonies, and it was not until later that the Court held that the right applies to any misdemeanor case in which imprisonment is imposed—that no person may be sentenced to jail who was convicted in the absence of counsel, unless he validly waived his right.12 The Court subsequently extended the right to cases where a suspended sentence or probationary period is imposed, on the theory that any future incarceration that occurred would be based on the original uncounseled conviction.13
Because the absence of counsel when a defendant is convicted or pleads guilty goes to the fairness of the proceedings and undermines the presumption of reliability that attaches to a judgment of a court, Gideon has been held fully retroactive, so that convictions obtained in the absence of counsel without a valid waiver are not only voidable,14 but also may not be subsequently used either to support guilt in a new trial or to enhance punishment upon a valid conviction.15