''Scott v. Illinois'', 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the

Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

. In ''Scott'', the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel. To emphasize the importance of court-appointed counsel, the Court opined, " e interest protected by the right to have guilt or innocence determined by a jury... while important, is not as fundamental to the guarantee of a fair trial as is the right to counsel."

Background

After being denied a request for court-appointed counsel, Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and one year in jail.

Supreme Courts decision

A plurality held that Illinois had not violated the Constitution. Writing for four of the justices, Rehnquist clarified the Court's holding in ''

Argersinger v. Hamlin ''Argersinger v. Hamlin'', 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. ''Gideon v. Wainwright'' ...

'' (1972) and argued that states could sentence a convicted criminal to imprisonment only if that person had been represented by counsel. Since Scott was not sentenced to imprisonment, even though the applicable statute allowed for it, the state was not obligated to provide counsel. Rehnquist called that line of reasoning "the central premise of Argersinger." Justice Brennan dissented, drawing a distinction between "actual imprisonment" and "authorized imprisonment." He read Argersinger as saying that the right to jury trial existed when (1) a non-petty offense punishable by more than 6 months of jail time and (2) actual imprisonment was likely despite the authorized maximum penalty. Brennan viewed authorized imprisonment as a more accurate standard because criminal statutes were written with this standard in mind and the social stigma attached to a crime took it into account. Brennan also said the majority's reason for going with the actual imprisonment standard was budgetary. He said that this was an inappropriate standard when dealing with constitutional guarantees.

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scott V. Illinois United States Supreme Court cases United States Sixth Amendment appointment of counsel case law 1979 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court

Background

Supreme Courts decision

See also

References