Johnson v. Zerbst
"Johnson v. Zerbst" is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot deprive an individual of their life or liberty without providing access to legal representation, unless the individual voluntarily waives that right. Specifically, the ruling emphasizes that for indigent defendants—those who cannot afford an attorney—the government has the responsibility to appoint and finance competent legal counsel. This landmark decision established a foundational principle for fair trial rights in federal criminal proceedings. The implications of Johnson v. Zerbst were further expanded in subsequent cases, notably Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 and Argersinger v. Hamlin in 1972, which extended the right to counsel requirement to state criminal cases. Overall, the case underscores the importance of legal representation in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of defendants within the legal system.
Johnson v. Zerbst
Date: May 23, 1938
Citation: 304 U.S. 458
Issue: Indigent criminal defendants
Significance: The Supreme Court held that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in federal criminal proceedings.
In examining an appeal of a person convicted of counterfeiting, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 6-2 margin, that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life or liberty unless the person has or waives the assistance of counsel. In the case of an indigent defendant, therefore, the federal government has the obligation of appointing and paying for a competent attorney. The Johnson requirement was later extended to state criminal proceedings in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972).