Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1979

Scott v. Illinois

440 U.S. 367 | 99 S. Ct. 1158 | 59 L. Ed. 2d 383 | 1979 U.S. LEXIS 3

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that an indigent defendant has a federal constitutional right to appointed counsel only if the conviction results in actual imprisonment, not merely because jail was an authorized punishment.

Background

Aubrey Scott, an indigent defendant, was tried without counsel in an Illinois court for shoplifting merchandise worth less than $150. The offense carried a maximum penalty of a $500 fine, one year in jail, or both. After a bench trial, Scott was convicted and fined $50; the court imposed no jail sentence.

Scott argued that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to appoint counsel because imprisonment was an authorized punishment. The Illinois intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Illinois likewise rejected his claim, reading Argersinger v. Hamlin to require appointed counsel only when a defendant is actually sentenced to incarceration. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to resolve disagreement among lower courts about Argersinger's reach.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a State to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with an offense punishable by jail when the defendant is convicted but receives only a fine.

Holding

No. The Constitution requires appointed counsel only when an indigent defendant is actually sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Reasoning

The Court read Argersinger v. Hamlin as drawing the constitutional line at actual imprisonment. Argersinger repeatedly stated that no person may be imprisoned without counsel, and it described its rule as protecting defendants whose cases result in an actual deprivation of liberty. Although some language in Argersinger reserved the question whether counsel is required when no loss of liberty occurs, the Court concluded that Argersinger had already defined the constitutional minimum rather than merely begun an open-ended expansion of the right.

The Court distinguished the right to counsel from the separate Sixth Amendment jury-trial doctrine. Duncan and Baldwin use the maximum authorized sentence to distinguish serious from petty offenses for jury-trial purposes, but Argersinger expressly rejected importing that six-month jury-trial line into the counsel context. Constitutional line drawing is especially difficult in incorporated rights applied across the diverse state criminal systems, and the Court was unwilling to extend an already-expanded rule beyond Argersinger's actual-imprisonment principle.

Actual imprisonment is a sanction different in kind from a fine or the mere possibility of jail. Because incarceration is uniquely severe, the Court held that a State may not impose it after an uncounseled criminal trial on an indigent defendant. But where the State elects to impose only a fine, it need not have provided appointed counsel at trial.

The actual-imprisonment rule also supplied a workable and clear limit. Extending the appointment requirement to every charge carrying an authorized jail term would create uncertainty and substantial, difficult-to-predict costs for state courts. Since Scott received only a $50 fine and no jail sentence, his uncounseled conviction did not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Concurrences

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell joined the Court to provide a clear rule for the many lower courts confronting misdemeanor prosecutions, and he regarded adherence to Argersinger as required by stare decisis. He nevertheless maintained the view he expressed in Argersinger that the Constitution itself did not compel the actual-imprisonment rule.

In his view, an imprisonment-based rule may operate poorly in practice. Before hearing evidence, trial judges may have to decide whether to appoint counsel or relinquish their statutory authority to impose jail, even though other convictions carrying no incarceration can have serious consequences. In crowded urban courts and rural areas with few available lawyers, appointing counsel may be impracticable. Powell hoped the Court would eventually adopt a more flexible due-process approach.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the Sixth Amendment's text guarantees counsel in "all criminal prosecutions" and that Gideon made appointed counsel a categorical requirement for indigent defendants because counsel is fundamental to a fair adversarial trial. In his view, the majority improperly treated the eventual sentence, rather than the criminal charge and the risks faced at trial, as the measure of whether counsel is required.

Brennan read Argersinger as rejecting any petty-offense limitation on the right to counsel and as holding at least that counsel is necessary whenever incarceration is likely. He further reasoned that Argersinger could not support a right-to-counsel rule narrower than the right to a jury trial. Because Scott faced up to one year in jail, he was charged with a nonpetty offense for which the Constitution guaranteed a jury trial and, therefore, appointed counsel.

The better rule, Brennan argued, would require counsel whenever imprisonment is an authorized penalty. The authorized penalty reflects the offense's seriousness, procedural consequences, stigma, and collateral effects more reliably than the sentence ultimately selected. A theft conviction, for example, can carry consequences involving credibility, jury eligibility, occupational licensing, and employment even when it produces no jail time.

The actual-imprisonment standard also creates practical problems. It forces a judge, before trial and without hearing the evidence, either to appoint counsel or to surrender in advance the discretion to impose incarceration. Brennan argued that an authorized-imprisonment standard would be clearer, would preserve legislative sentencing choices, and would not be defeated by speculative concerns about the costs of providing counsel.

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun would have held that the right to appointed counsel extends at least as far as the constitutional right to a jury trial. Thus, counsel would be required for any nonpetty offense punishable by more than six months' imprisonment, as well as for any offense that actually results in incarceration under Argersinger.

This rule would provide a clear line while reconciling Duncan, Baldwin, and Argersinger on a principled basis. Since Scott's offense was punishable by up to one year in jail, it was nonpetty, and Blackmun would have reversed the Illinois judgment.