danielle
05-20-2002, 09:18 PM
Court rules defendants deserve lawyer even on minor charge
By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
5/20/02 5:53 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court, ruling Monday in an Alabama case, held that defendants deserve a lawyer even if facing only a suspended jail term for a minor charge.
Someone given a suspended term may well end up in jail if the suspension is revoked, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a 5-4 decision led by the court's more liberal wing.
Unless a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the constitutional right to a lawyer, he or she may not be imprisoned, Ginsburg wrote for herself and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer.
The majority upheld an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in favor of LaReed Shelton, who acted as his own lawyer and was given a 30-day suspended sentence for assault, plus two years probation. The charge stemmed from a fight at his rural grocery store.
He argued that the state should have given him a lawyer because he could not afford his own and he might have faced jail time if authorities decided he was not living up to the terms of his probation.
Alabama and an outside lawyer the court appointed to make a related argument said Shelton never would have been sent to jail, and could have had a lawyer if he needed one later in the court process.
The majority is "satisfied that Shelton is entitled to appointed counsel at the critical stage when his guilt or innocence of the charged crime is decided and his vulnerability to imprisonment is determined," Ginsburg wrote.
Alabama and its backers claimed that a ruling in favor of Shelton would mean costly and impractical requirements for states. Nationwide, thousands of defendants face misdemeanor charges every year for which the usual punishment is a suspended jail term. An unknown number of those have no lawyer.
Ginsburg, however, played down the consequences of the ruling. Most states already provide lawyers in more cases than the Constitution requires, she noted.
"The cost and impact of today's judgment is therefore likely to be more modest than projected," she said from the bench Monday.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The decision will lead to a far heavier burden on states than the majority acknowledges, Scalia wrote.
"Today's imposition upon the states finds justification neither in the text of the Constitution, nor in the settled practices of our people, nor in the prior jurisprudence of this court," Scalia wrote.
The case is Alabama v. Shelton, 01-1214.
By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
5/20/02 5:53 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court, ruling Monday in an Alabama case, held that defendants deserve a lawyer even if facing only a suspended jail term for a minor charge.
Someone given a suspended term may well end up in jail if the suspension is revoked, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a 5-4 decision led by the court's more liberal wing.
Unless a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the constitutional right to a lawyer, he or she may not be imprisoned, Ginsburg wrote for herself and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer.
The majority upheld an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in favor of LaReed Shelton, who acted as his own lawyer and was given a 30-day suspended sentence for assault, plus two years probation. The charge stemmed from a fight at his rural grocery store.
He argued that the state should have given him a lawyer because he could not afford his own and he might have faced jail time if authorities decided he was not living up to the terms of his probation.
Alabama and an outside lawyer the court appointed to make a related argument said Shelton never would have been sent to jail, and could have had a lawyer if he needed one later in the court process.
The majority is "satisfied that Shelton is entitled to appointed counsel at the critical stage when his guilt or innocence of the charged crime is decided and his vulnerability to imprisonment is determined," Ginsburg wrote.
Alabama and its backers claimed that a ruling in favor of Shelton would mean costly and impractical requirements for states. Nationwide, thousands of defendants face misdemeanor charges every year for which the usual punishment is a suspended jail term. An unknown number of those have no lawyer.
Ginsburg, however, played down the consequences of the ruling. Most states already provide lawyers in more cases than the Constitution requires, she noted.
"The cost and impact of today's judgment is therefore likely to be more modest than projected," she said from the bench Monday.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The decision will lead to a far heavier burden on states than the majority acknowledges, Scalia wrote.
"Today's imposition upon the states finds justification neither in the text of the Constitution, nor in the settled practices of our people, nor in the prior jurisprudence of this court," Scalia wrote.
The case is Alabama v. Shelton, 01-1214.