Johnson v. Zerbst

304 U.S. 458 (1938), argued 4 Apr. 1938, decided 23 May 1938 by vote of 6 to 2; black for the Court, Reed concurring, McReynolds and Butler in dissent, Cardozo not participating. Johnson was convicted in federal court of feloniously possessing, uttering, and passing counterfeit money. At the time of trial, he was indigent and unable to employ an attorney to represent him. While imprisoned, he filed for habeas corpus relief in a federal district court, arguing that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The district court denied his claim and the court of appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that under the Sixth Amendment, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to deprive an accused of his life or liberty unless he has the assistance of counsel or the trial court clearly determines, on the record, that he has intelligently and competently waived his right to counsel. In effect, the Court required that counsel be appointed for indigent defendants in all federal criminal cases. Six years earlier in Powell v. Alabama (1932), the Court had issued a more limited ruling applying to state courts, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause required that counsel be appointed in state courts when the defendant was charged with a capital offense and was incapable of making his own defense. The right to counsel in state courts was later expanded in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972).

See also Counsel, Right to; Sixth Amendment.

— Susan E. Lawrence

Johnson v. Zerbst
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 4, 1938 Decided May 23, 1938
Full case name	Johnson v. Zerbst, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga.
Citations	304 U.S. 458 (more)
Holding
Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis Pierce Butler · Harlan F. Stone Owen J. Roberts · Benjamin N. Cardozo Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Case opinions
Majority	Black, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Roberts
Concurrence	Reed
Dissent	McReynolds
Dissent	Butler
Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which the petitioner, Johnson, 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. Johnson filed for habeas corpus relief, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated, but he was denied by both a federal district court and the court of appeals.

Supreme Court involvement

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and overturned the decisions of the lower courts. In a six to two decision, the Court held that the federal court had infringed upon Johnson’s life and liberty by not giving him counsel to defend him during trial. In the majority opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that,

“

Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty.

”

This set the precedent that defendants have the right to be represented by an attorney unless they waive their right to counsel knowing full well the potential consequences. This precedent, however, only made this right applicable to federal defendants and did not extend to defendants in trials under state jurisdiction. Assistance of counsel was held to be requisite to due process of law in state felony proceedings with the Gideon v. Wainwright decision in 1963.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 304

External links

• 304 U.S. 458 (Full text opinion from Findlaw.com)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)