# Amicus Curiae Brief — Argersinger v. Hamlin

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0032%3A08

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1972
- **Citation:** 407 U.S. 25

## Text

Jon RICHAKD ARGERSINGER,

BayMonp Haun, Samus, Leow ( |
ve i ie ;

rt
: Sag Pe

eee ii [*

~ Ge, o *
LR ES

ae
eee

ys oe

as
dee
¥

Seetement......--...-..-.-.---.--.---2------e

Summary of Argument____--------.---------_--
Argument:

The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

Of The United States Constitution Require

That An Indigent Defendant Not Be De-

prived Of Liberty Without Having Been

Afforded Appointed Counsel_______---__-

A. The right to appointed counsel when an

indigent may be sentenced to imprison-

ment for more than six months_______-

B. The right te appointed counsel when an

indigent may be sentenced to imprison-

ment for less than six months________-

C. Formulation of the right_.____-___.______

D. Effect on the Federal system_______-___-

: E. Effect on the states_____.______________

Mupenclusion.___..-...-------------------------

2 CITATIONS
~ Cases:
Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States,
SO os Bie oe erence ee
~ Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66___--_____-
4 7, 10, 15, 16,
- Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455__._------_-_- __
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194_______-__- _
Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540___-- ee
Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373_____. .
Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517________-
District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617_-

457-546—72 1 (T)°

ty
wo m8

Cases—Continued

Page
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353._..__- 17, 18, 33
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145__-------- 3,
6, 7, 10, 14, 20, 22
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478_____- er: i
in v6 Goud, G67 US. 1... =.
aanananaeEeEeaeEeaeaeaEeEeEeEeaeEeEeEeEeEeEeEaEa9mmeEeEeEaeaeaeaeaeaeaeaaaaa————————eeEe a eas

a,
34

representation is usually better than none at all, and
we trust that most jurisdictions \il work out repre-
sentation much better than that described in the
quoted portion of the Report. In any event, that bet-
ter assistance inight be provided in petty offenses
eases would not be a proper ground for finding indi-
gents not to be entitled to minimal assistance that
would often be of considerable valuable.

In summary, recognizing that there will be trouble-
some pzactical aspects to effectuating the right, we
suggest that the fundamental character of counsel's
assistance for fair criminal trials should lead this
Court to hold that there is a constitutional right to
appointed counsel for indigents who may be sen-.
tenced to imprisonment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of. the
Florida Supreme Court. should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted.
Erwin N. GRISWOLD,
Solicitor Generel.
Henry E. PETERSEN,
Assistant Attorney General.
KENT GREENAWALT,
Deputy Solicitor General.
Harry R. SAcuse,
Assistant to the Solicitor General.
BEATRICE ROSENBERG,
SipNEY M. Gazer,
. Attorneys, Department of Justice.
FeEpruary 1972.

U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1°72

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0032%3A08. Public record. Not legal advice.