The Right to have an attorney at all stages of a criminal proceeding is regarded as a component of the general right to a fair trial, a fundamental right in the American justice system. This right exists whether the accused can or cannot afford a defense lawyer. In cases where a defendant is indigent, the court is required to appoint counsel free of charge to the defendant. This however was not always the case.
The right to counsel in trial in federal cases was indeed recognized early on the U.S. Bill of Rights, however the right was extended in cases before the state court much later. The US Supreme Court in another landmark 1963 decision of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, ruled that state court have to provide an attorney in all criminal cases where the defendant was unable to afford an attorney for their defense. This was a unanimous decision by the Court and it was based on the Sixth Amendment.
In 1966 along came the famous decision of Miranda v. Arizona, one of the most recognized Supreme Court decisions in the last century. The Court held that a person in police custody must be informed of the right to speak with an attorney and of the right against self-incrimination prior to being questioned by police. This important ruling has been interpreted in several subsequent Court decisions but still serves as a landmark case emphasizing the importance of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
More recently an important question was raised before appellate courts: Does the right to counsel extend to civil proceedings that can lead to loss of liberty? The question recognizes the fact that people can face fail time even without facing a criminal case. Certain administrative or civil proceedings can have the same results of jail time. Many states, including California, already provide attorneys for people in cases where jail time is a possibility. Such cases may include parole administrative hearings and civil contempt hearings. In 2006 the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Anne Pasqua, et al. v. Hon. Gerald J. Council, et al., 186 N.J. 127, that the right to have an attorney should extend regardless of the nature of the proceeding if the defendant faces a possible loss of liberty. The court ruled that indigent clients involved in such proceedings are entitled to counsel. Most recently the Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers, Docket 10-10, took up the question of whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in holding that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt preceding that could result in his incarceration. The Supreme Court took up this case for decision because the South Carolina court decision was in conflict with over twenty federal courts of appeal and state court of last resort. The Court is scheduled to hear argument in the case on March 23, 2011.
While the right to counsel is recognized and its history rich in American jurisprudence, not all are entitled to counsel free of charge. Most counties in California have attorneys working as public defenders. The court will appoint a public defender free of charge for clients who are indigent and cannot afford a private attorney. Most attorneys working for the public defender office are excellent attorneys with great experience. Unfortunately, many times their large case load however does not allow them to spend as much time and pay as much attention as your case deserves. Hiring a private criminal defense attorney will ensure that you are not just another field in a new stack of cases.
