Constitutional Right to Counsel

The now famous Scottsboro Boy's trial established the following rights of defendants and established the State of Alabama as one of the most infamous States to deny human rights in America. Powell vs. Alabama, 53 S.Ct. 55, 287 U.S. 45 (S.Ct. 1932), tells of four young boys going to prison, not because of guilt, but because judges, lawyers and prosecutors refused to allow the boys basic human rights. However, the only reason Powell holds any significance today is that courts are eager to appoint counsel for defendants, because to appoint counsel, means that one more lawyer buddy is on the payroll. Some lawyers complain that the taxpayer funded $80.00 per hour fee is to small. The constitutional right to counsel also includes the right to self-representation. Judges are so repulsed by the idea of self-representation that most have entered into pacs with fellow judges, where all agree in advance to never allow a person, representing himself, an opportunity to present his case. The pacs extend all the way to the highest appellant and supreme courts in the land. The following examples were taken from United States Supreme Court Reports. Delineated here, the examples show how courts destroy court cases and individuals lives - judges regularly write in their decisions: "There is nothing in the record to show the circumstances complained of"; "In no opinion cases, the appellate court follows the rule that there is nothing to review"; Note: When a judge fails to write an opinion, your case is dead - appeals will get the same result; "This case is NOT ripe for review at this time"; "The issue complained of is not the proper one for review now"; This is surely not the type of judgment "which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." "I can find nothing in this record to justify such a contention." "There is nothing impalpable about these provisions." "There is nothing in the legislative history to indicate that the Congress intended ..." "There is ... nothing in the language of that Act or its legislative history that supports the distinctions drawn by petitioner." "The trial court did not abuse its discretion ..." "The trial court's error was a harmless error and did not prejudice defendant's rights." "This court cannot review issues raised for the first time on appeal." "This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this petition." "Appellant made no argument and cited no authority to support his contention." "Responsibility of granting review is in cases that demand adjudication on the basis of importance to the operation of our federal system; importance of the outcome merely to the parties is not enough . . ." The States "compelling interest" is greater than a citizen civil rights. The "Statute of Limitations" has run out; Litigant does not have "standing" to sue; The mythical "best interest of the child" overrides the parents rights; Dictator judges declare, "This is my courtroom and in my courtroom, You don't have any rights!" And many, many more! The following comes directly from the Scottsboro Boy's published opinion, with a link to the full case at the end. 1. The rule denying the aid of counsel to persons charged with felony, which (except as to legal questions) existed in England when our Constitution was formed, was rejected in this country by the Colonies before the Declaration of Independence, and is not a test of whether the right to counsel in such cases is embraced in the guarantee of "due process of law." P. 65. 2. 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. 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. 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. 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 of the case. P. 71. 6. In a case such as this, the right to have counsel appointed, when necessary, is a logical corollary to the right to be heard by counsel. P. 72. 7. In such circumstances, the trial court has power, even in the absence of statute, to appoint an attorney for the accused; and the attorney, as an officer of the court, is bound to serve. P. 73. Powell vs. Alabama, 53 S.Ct. 55, 287 U.S. 45 (S.Ct. 1932) See Scottsboro Boy's Story

Back to Contents

No legal advice is given on this Website or Webpage
Send comments to American Injustice
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 by American Injustice, Inc. All rights reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.