Misplaced Pages

Argersinger v. Hamlin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

1972 United States Supreme Court case
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1971
Reargued February 28, 1972
Decided June 12, 1972
Full case nameJon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin, Sheriff, Leon County, Florida
Docket no.70-5015
Citations407 U.S. 25 (more)92 S. Ct. 2006; 32 L. Ed. 2d 530; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 139
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
ProceduralCertiorari to the Florida Supreme Court, 236 So. 2d 442.
Holding
A criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart
ConcurrenceBurger
ConcurrencePowell, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background

Argersinger was sentenced under Florida law to 90 days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon but was never represented by counsel. Hamlin was the local sheriff. Argersinger claimed his conviction was unconstitutional, but his case was dismissed by the Florida Supreme Court, who relied on Duncan v. Louisiana, which held that jury trials were not required for crimes with a sentence of less than six months. The Florida court claimed that since jury trials were not required for misdemeanors, then neither was counsel.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida courts and overturned the conviction. The Court held that a criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel.

References

External links

United States Sixth Amendment case law
Speedy Trial Clause
Public Trial Clause
Impartial Jury Clause
Availability
Impartiality
Facts found
Size and unanimity
Vicinage Clause
Impeachment of verdicts
Information Clause
Confrontation Clause
Out-of-court statements
Face-to-face confrontation
Restrictions on cross-examination
Compulsory Process Clause
Assistance of Counsel Clause
Choice
Appointment
Conflict-free
Ineffective assistance
Uncounseled statements
Pro se representation
Categories:
Ad.

Before you begin

Get Life Coaching Tips
Or continue to this article
X