# Smith v. Crouse

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 584

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950016

## Case

- **Full name:** SMITH v. CROUSE, WARDEN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 22, 1964
- **Citations:** 378 U.S. 584; 12 L. Ed. 2d 1039; 84 S. Ct. 1929; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 873
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harlan
- **Judges:** Harlan
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950016

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 to be retroactive

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 , should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U. S. 998 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950016. Public record. Not legal advice.