Comments on: Roth-very narrow

By: Undoing Gideon’s promise | a public defender

Undoing Gideon’s promise | a public defender — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:24:43 +0000

[...] across the country are cutting budgets and closing up show, and at the same time that SCOTUS gave fresh guidance on when the right to counsel attaches, it is important to reflect on the place of the public [...]

By: Glen Graham

Glen Graham — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:06:08 +0000

An interesting side note is that if the right to counsel attaches then likewise law enforcement should not question the defendant without counsel present and certain other procedural and due process rights also attach.

This case was a civil law suit which implies that in the minority of states which still fail to appoint counsel in a “timely” manner may subject themselves to lawsuits and should now be on notice that the safest thing to do is to appoint counsel in a timely manner to avoid those law suits. C-Y-A – appoint counsel for the defendant, what harm is done by appointing counsel and you can avoid another law suit. http://www.oklahomacriminaldefense.blogspot.com/

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:04:14 +0000

But remember, there should be no IAC claim if the argument is that defense counsel should have advised me to take plea on the table . . . .

The folks at C & C are correct about Gideon. Where in the constitution does it say that the state has to pay for counsel. It doesn’t, and that’s what was held until Gideon.

By: All Wrong

All Wrong — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:17:22 +0000

Y’all are all wrong.

The 6th amendment gives a citizen the right [...] to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The court says the right attaches at the 15.17 hearing.

So the proper question is: When does the defense begin?

And the answer is: It depends.

If Rothgery was telling the officer and the magistrate something like: “You got the wrong guy. I’m not a felony. I’m innocent!” Well then it is an easy question to answer. If, on the other hand, he just nodded and went back to his jail cell then it isnt so very clear.

By: Acerbic

Acerbic — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:12:48 +0000

Seems they just told the 5thCCoA it can’t decide the case on the issue of prosecutorial involvement and remanded. What’s so hard to understand about that?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:20:47 +0000

Well, I think you’re making the logical leap that the Court did not make. It simply said “This is when a prosecution commences”.

It expressly refused to say what happens afterward and what Texas must do, if anything.

It would be prudent for Texas to provide counsel, but it is pretty clear that the decision does not require it to do so.

By: Gritsforbreakfast

Gritsforbreakfast — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:18:06 +0000

Gideon, at least for Texas, IANAL but I disagree the opinion does not say the right to counsel attaches at the bail hearing. The opinion specifically declared, “Texas’s [sic] article 15.17 hearing marks the point of attachment.” That’s pretty clear, and in direct contradiction to past TX Court of Criminal Appeals rulings. For other states whose specific statutes weren’t referenced with a declarative sentence stating when the right to counsel attaches, I agree the opinion looks much less clear.