# Opinion — Adams v. Illinois > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0366%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opinion - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 278 ## Text 6 / ‘ ‘ Justice } 5 wv J = re s*° . 6 Il. 2d 200, 263 'N. B. 2d 400, affirmed. . + Baan wan, J.j-anmounced the Court's judgment and delivered’ an . (Opinion, in which Srewarr and Warre, JJ,, joined. Bunarr, C.J. +» filed am opinion. voneurring in ‘the result, post, p. 285. Busckmun, _ J, filed ing opinion, in which MansHa1t,; J., joined, post, , 11, took no part in the com Seva aes eral, and Janes B. Zagel and Jomes R. geen le | sistant “Attorneys General. >.> Mr, Justice Leieckagremcunelditie inkiemeaatiia - Court and’ an opinion, peu neengsbabagshie Gen ex irene 4 and Mr. Jusvice Wurre join. 3 In Coleman y. Alabama, 399 U. 8. 1, -ddaisad Seu & 1970; we held that a preliminary hearing is a critical lovrdts of the criminal process at’ which the accused: * is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel. "Tali pecans th eusion er that constitu- a tional doctrine applies to preliminary hear- ings, conducted prior to June 22, 1970. ee2 : | ‘The Circuit Court of Cook County, Hlinoia, conducted -° - against petitioner of selling heroin. ° Petitioner was not _ represerited by counsel at the hearing~ He was bound " over’ to the grand jury, which indicted him. By pretrial — a motion he sought. dismissal of the indictment on the '* ground that it was invalid because’ of the failure of the _ourt to appoint counsel t6 represent him at the pre- ite Morris decision was superseded by Coleman,’ but a ih iat Geos Court te, 6, 24a, 20-0 N, 3 ot delmnng teeta fale som bao oe ees ee ira Ae ee Vices o ° pe > a oe > . ° ete >. Me lors 5 se ; ‘ Seek ~ ka SONI sot SE , og “le ; . aL ", ad i ! ; p. ; te . 0 ¢-. ’ j as rs : if / | ‘a'preliminary hearing on February 10, 1967, on a charge. ees *.jiminary hearing: ‘The: motion was denied on May 3, . . 1967, on the authority of People v. Morris, 30 Ill. 2d 406, 197 N. B. 2d 433.(1964). “In Morris the Iinois Supreme —- - e Court held that the Illinois preliminary hearing was not : . @ critical stage at whith the accused had a constitutional evant em eves tinnrsccerh Petitioner’s convie- “Ap 1 Cri ey alg A ih TR Se OCTOBER. TERM, 1971 Opinion of Rpanexan, J. 406 U.8. i ia. ! - ings conducted after June. 22, 1970, the date Coleman. was decided. 46 Ili. 2d 200, 263 N. E..2d 490 (1970). We granted certiorari limited to the question of the pn ar gery 401-U. Ss. 963 (1971). We . Time as cee veadinich ab deli ld tis retroactivity of new. constitutional mules of criminal pro- ~ cedure “implicate (a).the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b). the extent. of the reliance by law + enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a rétroactive » application of the new standards.” Stovall v. Denno, - $88 U. S. 298, 297 (19867). We have given complete . ' petroactive effect to the new rule, regardless of good-faith reliance by lawenforcement authorities or the degree of — _ impact on the adniinistration of justice, where the “major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome: an Sepa ot fie srieninal trial thas substantially inspaire ite truth-finding. fudection and 90° raises serious: questions . about the: accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials... .” . Williams v. United States, 401 U. 8. 646; 653 (1971). Examples are the right to counsel at trial, Gideon v. ’ -See.generally Stovall v.. Denno, supra, at: ee . Sea is: eS : Si, ee RR Se : cs ; = Pat A eee Kees ~ . ry : aes FS Hes 278 | a “Opinion of Bama, 3. - "Wainwrights 372.U..8, 335.41963); on appeal: Dougles | . ¥, Califor, 372 U. 8,-353,(1963); or at someformeief - arraignment, Hamilton 9; Alabéme; 208.0: il aa. liams v. United. States, supra, at 653 n. 6. aT Genie eaemioheier asemiieedan of criminal procedure does or. does not. enhance the: re- © . liability of the fact-finding process at. trial is necessarily a matter of degree,” Johnson. v. New Jersey, 304.U..8. | 719, 728-729 (1966) ; it is a “question of .prol : Id.,.at 729, Thus, althoush, toe rule reauiing.fie. ot : sistance of counsel at a lineup, - United, States v. Wade, 388 U. 8. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 333-478.263 (1967), is “aimed at avoiding unfairness at the tral by enhancing the reliability of the fact-finding process in the a area of identification evidence,” Wp yeti ected bilities of infecting the integrity of the tr termining | process by denial of counsel at-the lineup were: ent less. than ‘the omission of counsel at the trial iteelf or on appeal that those probabilities “must, in turn be, weighed ’ against the. prior justified reliance upon the old standard (iin hal eee eee - of: gee Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 298. We hold that similarly the role of counsel at th hearing differs sufficiently. from the n 3 ¢ So 3 _ coutieel ‘at trial in its impact upon the integrity of the we of the factfinding process ‘as to require the weighing ? _ probabilities’ of such infection against the elements of ‘prior justified reliance and -the impact. of retroactivity | upon the ‘administration of criminal justice. We may lay aside the functions’ of counsel ot ie.) rel oi : pric derns gtr ediapaliaenlye | ay a ati BER TERM, 1971 ; ed ; 2 re ve s cs g. . : AG ee Opinion of Bamana, J. 405 0.8. 7 mient'toglfor:use, in erust-eitimiation of the State's _ \witnesses:at the'trial,” to “discover the case the State has : against his client,” “making effective arguments for the — - . @ccused‘or ‘such matters’as ‘the necessity for an early — _ psychiatric examination . 23? ibid —impeachment and . diedvackalig- chal paltioularty dguifiaant cotiteibtion to the enhancement of the factfinding process, sine they - materially affect an. acctised’s ability to present an ef- fective defense at trial. But because of limitations upon _ the “use“of "the preliminary hearing ‘for discovery and. € ment purposes, counsel cannot be as effectual as at ‘trial or on appeal. The authority of the court to : terminate the preliminary hearing once probable cause is a. _ established, see People v. Bonner, 37 Til. 2d 553, 560, 229 _ ‘N. E2527, 531 (1967), means that the degree of dis-. © __ @very obtained will vary depending on how much evi- dence the presiding judge receives. Too, the preliminary .” hearing is held at an early stage of the prosecution when 3 trad pcre re flags ar Mian ered not be complete. Cf. S. Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., Ist ‘Sess. 33, on amending 18 U. 8, C. $3060. -Counsel must See iia GPE lotr of atlernative peoenliren, wage ® arty 84 V. 8, xe 130. Ulinoe rove Johnson v. 2 prosscuitios a Niluaibaers: ‘TIL Rey. Stat., ¢. 38, $6 114.9, = ieee “14-10 (1971). ‘Pretrial ‘statements of ptosecu-_ = rors geld marge troageny ae? ye D08eS. .. See, ¢. 9. People.v, Johnson, 31 Tl 2d ~ ncn = mop opgipereethg lye . _.+ Supreme Court, “Or pick ebaaheasy seeders. S I pro eval tense cca . a - e S eee Se EE Rae. tee eee 2 - . . a zy hs ee SES ee — ; BES Fess, - ™ : . = - ~ . ra DMB sa + Opinion of Remarnas, . uelbeieaelks Seth dnoguinast edieeiisorstens we consider, at a preliminary hearing at which the-ac+ cused is unrepresented than at a pretrial line-up: or at. _ an interrogation conducted without presence of an at-- ' torney.” 46 Ill: 2d, at 207, 263.N, E. 2d, at404*.. > _ We turn then to weighing the probabilities that the: denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing will infect. the integrity of the factfinding process at trial against ~ the prior. justified. reliance upon. the old standard and ~ the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of -. justice. We do not think that law enforcement. author- ities are to be faulted for not anticipating Coleman... There was no clear foreshadowing of that rule. A con- --e trary inference was not unreasonable in light of our de- . Gisions in Hamilton vy. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52; and White v. ’ Maryland, 373 U. 8. 59 (1963). _ Hamilton denominated the arraignment stage in Alabama critical because de- _ fenses not asserted at. that stage might be forever lost. White held that an uncdunseled plea of guilty at a ‘¢:g the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in People Lin ee —— Moreover, a "2 Accord: Philipe v.. North: Caroline; 433 F. 2a 650, 662 (1970), - where the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit observed: a8 Te be sae it « priminary Imrng is hl, th anne ine important rights and advantages that can be effectively exercised e hearing is to advise, observe, discover the facts, and probe the state's = 8 erent Mote . an ; on ' “Opinion of Bamwwaw, J. 4060.8. : niimber:of courts, ineluding all of the Federal Courts of. © not ‘critical stage entitling an accused to the saristance | of. counsel.’ It is thus clear there has been understand-_ - able and widespread reliance upon this view by law en- forcement officials and the courts. Wa ae It follows that retroactive application of Coisiian | “would seriously disrupt the administration of our crim 7 -aablaws.” «Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U: S., at 731. At the very least, the processing of current criminal calendars would be disrupted while hearings were conducted to determine whether the denial of counsel ‘at the pre- _ liminary héaring constifuted harmless error. Cf. Stovall . v. Dentio, 388 U. S., at 300: ‘The task of conducting such hearings would }é measurably complicated by the need _ to construct a record of what occurred. In Illinois, for _ example, no éourt reporter was present at pre-Coleman r preliminary hearings and the proceedings are therefore \ - not recorded. See People v. Givans; 83 Ill. App. 2d 423, 228 N. E. 2d 123 (1967). In addition, relief from’ this ' Ganatitutional. error. would. require not merely g new . trial but also, at least in Illinois, a new preliminary hear- . ing and a new indictment. The impact upon the adminis- _ tration of the criminal law of that: requirement needs no elaboration. Therefore, here also, “[t]he unusual force Se ee rere Te | * Pagan Cancel v. Delgado, 408 F. 2d 1018 (CA 1900); United _ States ex rel; Cooper v. Reincke, 333 F. 2d 608 (CA2 1964); United de States ex rel. Budd v. Maroney, 308 F. 24 806 (CA3 1968): DeToro. _ ¥o Peperenck, 882: F: 2d 341: (CA4 1984); Walker v: Wainwright, — 400 F; 2d 1812 (CAS 1960); Woddy v: Heer, 383 F. 2d 789 (CAG _ “3967); ' Butler -v. Burke, 300 F. 2d 118 (CA7 1968); ‘Pope v. Swen- , Qiegul bales cues cn wee Harris, 351 F. 2d 800 oat ; Latham v. Crowse, 320 F. Aah y a ‘etes, 115 U. 8. App. D.C. 81, 317 F. beaierbs 278 oe Donen 5. ecoourring in, result clusion in favor of prospective: application.” ‘Stovall. = : _ Denno, supra, at 299. ~ edo nee cgeed puthionsPaeets eactillig hata uiee . | | teary cosiditiston nesety. beensine he: ‘nendie:dieabalehiiall: * tion to dismiss the ‘indictment, or because his conviction — | - is before us on direct review. “{Tyhe factors of re- : lisnce and burden on the administration of justice [are] - entitled to~ such overriding significande as to make. [thowe} distinction[s} unsupportable.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 300-301. Petitioner makes no claim of actual “prejudice constituting a denial of due process. Such as | claim would entitle him to a hearing without. regard to . _ today’s holding that Coleman is not to be retroactively — - @pplied. ‘See People v. Rernatowics, 35 Til. 2d 192, 198, 900 N E. 2d 745, 748'(1966); People v. Bonner, 371. 2d 858, 561, 220 N. E. 2d 527, $39 (1087) : MR Justice Dinisini al ae: Pa ee Sere a asia horeierienearers prises Sonia or ons Mr. Cuiar Jusrice Buagsis, concurring in the result. . I coneur in the result but mairitain the view expressed _ in.my dissent in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. 8. 1; 21 (1970), ‘that .while counsel should be provided at pre- prewar nhnietmar afl poor Nad 2 nba iting action of “rl agen” : examination of the State’s witnesses at the trial” ‘Seesaw te Sate hr et i Ss? = Ss | - Dowanaa, J dmg ? © 5 U8 ae ee i caeieieieendliiniy: = _ @xtra-constitational scope of Coleman than the inter- | Boe or os eeprom gaetre a 8 ere ag iy Selene in the — Inasmuch as I. feel.that Coleman vy. Alabama; OTA Fe LARA remnants Tonnes fo Sho. 8 letter 7 Ye Tae 381 U, a si (08), th onally applied ner r, however Sk ale cfs wow, oocion et x eee Waele wt cceliishahshen peas yoaskine T have dis- : : agreed on numerous occasions with applications of vari- ve ous brands of _ gece sang ag Soneanteties re ae wat “find ‘his < eer et « « c od ; “ a ~ a ‘3 ceeriset Fie ed * 3 4 ae + os fo ad Shoe cael & guilty, person-were to complain of his lot bewustothers equally == z ¥ Savin heme’ iaakied ky the eke. ‘Sietaaptenntar enteeet woos tara Res Crrnitae vow isk Batt Pu Bupa eaat ae iy a SN Ws at Sa iiaey yeas RIN RSet woe Been x ion thir snl peal ive a limaingyy) hearing may provide the defense with the most valuable discovery technique available to him,” v. Flood, 260 F. Supp. 194,198 (EDNY 1987), an objec: "God McComel x. hay, $08 U. 8. 2 Cioes) (Wenpe | retro- ; posit Load Pa 393 a ergs. UB (18) Chie and ie ve ight of the lengths to which the right to appointed counsel has been carried in recent’ de- St : s . - | 3 y Bae Ss Fa are 5 —_— oe PENS SRS BS: eas. Pe Sic Se os Sag E ; : ; % ; us = . : : a “ ES a 4 é hasan . E - core : “ ~ re . SE ee hen Bs ste : 3 oss e * » 4 % * peelliaceed dh tacialisahs wethpeiatigite inks | pe tule of Chapman: v. Calijgrnia, 386 “UL 8. 18 (1967). ‘The plurality opinion suggests that 1 - conducting such harmless-error proceedings would be onerous. One reason given is that in Illinois, for ex- * euen A den he os UK = __ sinple;..preliminary: hearings ‘were not: recorded ‘before i -julightiol: the fact thet thisvery venord ootilabia's ‘tran _ seript-of Adams’: preliminary hearing. Perhaps, as the respondent seems to concede,” transcripts were made — available: in other Illinois cases... That is the more rea- | sonable assumption in light of our holding in Roberts v. ' LaValle, 389 U.S. 40 (1967), that the State must pro- _ vide a preliminary hearing transcript to an indigent in | every, ciroumetapee in which the more effluent accused = fj a ivan: wheye'a-ieshiscrigt wan ‘hot dvadlibile;iotirves, aprisoner might be able to show at an evidentiary: hear- '. ing thet he was prejudiced by #.particular need for dis- covery, by the inability. to preserve the testimony of either an adverse or favorable witness, or by the inability to’ secure his release'on bail in order to assist in the "preparation of his defense? Courts are. accustomed, of : course, to assessing claims of prejudice without the aid | of transoripts of previous proceedings, such as is required : by Jackson v.. Denno, 378 U.S: 868 (1964), or Townsend _.V. Sain, 372 U. S. 293. (1963). Indeed, in Coleman we — remanded. for a determination of whether the failure to ‘appoint counsel had been harmless error. 399°U. 8., at 11. ‘Not every Coleman claim would warrant an evi-_ ‘dentiary ‘hearing. Many attacks might be disposed of : ‘summarily, such as a challenge to a conviction resulting from, 9.counesled guilty: plea entered ‘before sxy_ pre ; 3. Respondent's Brief 38. 28 OR, ARETE Sa 4 Rapes “Aen OR pois ¢ pd. i ‘ : a , * ¢ $5 gy, °. iY g A Le , } : ; ‘ s% . ie ‘ ‘ ; : é ee , : 4 a 4c > é. 4 ‘ ? , _ > ~ ' : ‘ Seat 5 ; : pare ata j > #6 “- . is * > z ‘ : . 4 . ~ 4 * ; 3 gy tna, " ah, : prs 4 . s : 5 ’ - ~ ‘ 3 ¢ a Bh - ; } "Ne ® © : . * : a . my 2 7 r — oF * * > ; See —- | Py . : . 2 q ' eee ee ~ . . ; : M « . « . 4 J ‘ ; * ™ ‘ r o4 a ~ . 4 4 i . . ; , : >. - . ‘ > ’ é : : * 6 'e : \ : ; . bd 4 | oe “ ti) - , . : z . y ' 2 A “*@ ‘ . \ b ( one . . . ° } ey ; . ( pc it : ’ $s ‘ f % > = ‘ . ; | f . . . Ve N | \ : * % — ; ? ‘ - <- 3 4 ’ . ‘ . : ‘ i ; ; . NS : : ; . i { if « 4 MY ‘ <= : . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0366%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.