Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353

Supreme Court of the United States

1963

Chapter

6

Title

Implied Fundamental Rights

Page

795

Topic

Indigent petitioners are entitled to appointed counsel at the appellate level.

Quick Notes

A California rule required state appellate courts, on the request of an indigent criminal defendant for counsel on appeal, to make "an independent investigation of the record" and to "appoint counsel [only] if in their opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court."

Rule

o    Indigent petitioners are entitled to appointed counsel at the appellate level.

o    Denial of counsel to the indigent, is invidious discrimination.

Reasoning

o    This is about a poor man not being able to acquire counsel while a rich man can

o    Lacking in equality, where a rich man enjoys the benefits of counsel while the is burdened by a preliminary determination

o    Indigent has meaningful ritual while rich man has a meaningful appeal

Justice Douglas - Holding

o         In a six-to-three decision, the Court held unconstitutional a California rule requiring state appellate courts, on the request of an indigent criminal defendant for counsel on appeal, to make "an independent investigation of the record" and to "appoint counsel [only] if in their opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court."

DISSENT - Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart

o    Cannot discriminate between rich and poor

o    This is a law of general applicability

o    Imposed on a uniform basis

Not required by the EPC to eliminate property

o    [The] State may have a moral obligation to eliminate the evils of poverty, but it is not required by the Equal Protection Clause to give to some whatever others can afford

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether an appellate court can determine if it would be helpful to the defendant or court if counsel were to be appointed?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         Defendants, who were convicted of 13 felonies, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, after the state supreme court denied their petitions for discretionary review without a hearing

Supreme

o         The Court held that a procedure like the one used by the state appellate court in which an indigent defendant was denied counsel on appeal unless he first made a preliminary showing of merit did not comport with fair procedure.

o         In vacating, the judgment of the state appellate court, the Court stated that where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent had as of right were decided without benefit of counsel, an unconstitutional line had been drawn between rich and poor

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Douglas

Df -   California

Description

o         A California rule required state appellate courts, on the request of an indigent criminal defendant for counsel on appeal, to make "an independent investigation of the record" and to "appoint counsel [only] if in their opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court."

o         Defendants, who were convicted of 13 felonies, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, after the state supreme court denied their petitions for discretionary review without a hearing.

o         The Court held that a procedure like the one used by the state appellate court in which an indigent defendant was denied counsel on appeal unless he first made a preliminary showing of merit did not comport with fair procedure.

o         In vacating, the judgment of the state appellate court, the Court stated that where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent had as of right were decided without benefit of counsel, an unconstitutional line had been drawn between rich and poor

Justice Douglas

Denial of counsel to indigent, is invidious discrimination

o    "[The denial] 'of counsel on appeal [to an indigent] would seem to be at least as invidious [a discrimination] as that condemned in [Griffin].'

California Rule - whether or not he can pay

o    [Under the California rule,] the type of an appeal a person is afforded [hinges] upon whether or not he can pay for the assistance of counsel. ... "When an indigent is forced to run this gauntlet of a preliminary showing of merit, the right to appeal does not comport with fair procedure.

This is about a poor man not being able to acquire counsel while a rich man can

o    [The] discrimination is not between 'possibly good and obviously bad cases,' but between cases where the rich man can require the court to listen to argument of counsel before deciding on the merits, but a poor man cannot.

Lacking in equality, where a rich man enjoys the benefits of counsel while the is burdened by a preliminary determination

o    There is lacking that equality demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment where the rich man, who appeals as of right, enjoys the benefit of counsel's examination into the record, research of the law, and marshalling of arguments on his behalf, while the indigent, already burdened by a preliminary determination that his case is without merit, is forced to shift for himself.

Indigent has meaningful ritual while rich man has a meaningful appeal

o    The indigent, where the record is unclear or the errors are hidden, has only the right to a meaningless ritual, while the rich man has a meaningful appeal."

Justice Douglas - Holding

o         In a six-to-three decision, the Court held unconstitutional a California rule requiring state appellate courts, on the request of an indigent criminal defendant for counsel on appeal, to make "an independent investigation of the record" and to "appoint counsel [only] if in their opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court."

DISSENT - Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart

Cannot discriminate between rich and poor

o    [The] States, of course, are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause from discriminating between 'rich' and 'poor' as such in the formulation and application of their laws.

This is a law of general applicability

o    But it is a far different thing to suggest that this provision prevents the State from adopting a law of general applicability that may affect the poor more harshly than it does the [rich].

Imposed on a uniform basis

o    Every financial exaction which the State imposes on a uniform basis is more easily satisfied by the well-to-do than by the indigent.

Not required by the EPC to eliminate property

o    [The] State may have a moral obligation to eliminate the evils of poverty, but it is not required by the Equal Protection Clause to give to some whatever others can afford .... "

Rules

Rule

o    Indigent petitioners are entitled to appointed counsel at the appellate level.

o    Denial of counsel to the indigent, is invidious discrimination.

Class Notes