Betts V Brady
Samuy Turnblom
R. Drew Moren
Criminal Law
Betts V Brady
Betts V Brady’s Citation:
316 U.S. 455, 62 S. CT. 1252, 86L. ED. 1595, 1942 U.S.
Fact:
In 1942 Betts was a petitioner who accused of robbery in court of Maryland. He was
unable to retain an attorney when he requested to the court for an attorney the court judge
refused, the court informs the petitioner that it wasn’t a practice of court to provide a counsel for
indigent defendant, except in prosecution for murder and rape. Without providing the right of
counsel from the court, Betts pleaded not guilty and choose to prosecute without a jury. The
petitioner was ask to appointed question to the prosecution witness, caused witness to called on
his behalf, advance defendant of alibi, and choose to not stand himself. He was found guilty and
sentenced for eight years. While he behind bar, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus which required him to be brought before a judge or into court. After his contention was
rejected he then filed the petition with the chief judge to the court of appeal in Maryland, he
noted on the papers that he was denial of the fourteenth amendment constitution right. Judge
Bond granted the writ but refused the relief requested in the petition. After, the petitioner
appealed to the supreme court of the United States for certiorari directed toward Judge Bond.
Issue:
During the election of Betts’ petition paper there were six to three decision the court
found that Betts didn’t have the right to be counsel with justice Hugo Black undoubtedly dissent.
In majority of the opinion, Justice Owen Roberts stated that according to sixth amendment
required the appointed counsel for all criminal defendant in federal court, this right is not so
fundamental for a fair trial in state. The right of counsel cannot be imposed upon the state
because recognizing right to counsel for the Due process require the recognition for counsel for
small traffic crime and civil case involving the deprivation of property. Owen Roberts said, "The
fourteen amendment prohibits the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to
the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right, and while want of counsel in a
particular case may result in a conviction lacking in such fundamental fairness, we cannot say
that the amendment embodies an inexorable command that no trial for any offense, or in any
court, can be fairly conducted and justice accorded a defendant who is not represented by
counsel"(case,1).
Judge Hugo Black said firmly to the court that the petitioner has no right to appointed the
counsel based on the fourteen amendment and also because the petitioner had no financial ability
to get one. He also said that Betts was guilty not because the representation from the attorney but
he guilty because he committed a crime. During the dissent he also stated that it united stated
supreme court case, in which the petitioner, Betts, had been convicted in federal court of
feloniously possessing, uttering, and passing counterfeit money in a trial where he had not been
represented by an attorney but instead by himself, so Betts should be send to federal court. Black
argues that he couldn’t represent such as law that he had never been train this kind of law matter.
Decision:
Because of empower to act upon the issues; judge Bond ordered was a final disposition to
the highest court in Maryland. The fourteen amendment of the constitution not allow the wrong
doing and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of
fairness and right, while want of counsel in a specific case may result in a conviction lacking of
fairness, we cannot say that the amendment embodies an inexorable commandment that no trial
for any defense, or in court, can be fairly conducts and justice accorded a defendant who is not
represent by any kind of counsel.
Discussion:
In the sixth amendment of the constitution stated that the accused shall enjoy speedy and
public trial in states or district where the crime had committed and he or she has the right to
obtain witness in his favor and to have assistance of counsel in his defense. Though, the supreme
court reasoned that fourteenth amendment is less rigid, more fluid and thus its application is less
matter of rule. Asserted declined of fourteenth amendment is to be tested by an appraisal of the
totality of facts in a given case to avoid a rigid application of law. The petitioner argued that
former decisions of the Supreme Court, although not directly on point, lead to the conclusion
that, in every case, whatever the circumstances, one charged with a crime, whose is unable to
retain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the state.
The Supreme Court finally made the decision that the fourteenth amendment of the
constitution should be officially changed, the states should provide the counsel to all indigent
person charged with crime, and except the application of the concept of a defendant to have
counsel in every criminal case. The Supreme Court review the original thirteen state’s law that
common law at the time should be formed and the constitution and statutory should issue to the
state before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that majority of state considered the
issue to be one of legislative policy best leave to individual state.