ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN 407 U.S. 25 (1972)

Argersinger culminated four decades of progression in right to counsel doctrine: from a due process requirement in capital punishment cases, to application of the Sixth Amendment to the states in serious felonies, and finally, in Argersinger, to extension of the requirement to any case in which there is a sentence of imprisonment.

Argersinger, unrepresented by counsel, was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced by a state court to ninety days in jail. The arguments in the Supreme Court were of an unusually practical rather than doctrinal nature. Much was made of the burden on state criminal justice systems that the extension of the right to counsel would cause. The state also argued that many misdemeanors, though carrying potential jail sentences, are exceedingly straightforward cases that a layperson could handle by him-or herself. Moreover, it was argued that people who can afford lawyers often do not hire them for such simple cases because the cost is not worth what a lawyer could accomplish. The Court rejected all these contentions and established imprisonment as a clear test for requiring the appointment of counsel.

Seven years later, in Scott v. Illinois (1979), the Court held that the appointment of counsel was not required for a trial when imprisonment was a possibility but was not actually imposed. The anomalous result is that a judge must predict before the trial whether he will impose imprisonment in order to know whether to appoint counsel.

Barbara Allen Babcock
(1986)