An important question for the courts is determining the right time and stage for the defendant to be assisted. Some stages in the process are presumed to be more important than others. This section will examine when assistance is needed from attorneys. Ideally, a defendant would retain a lawyer at every stage, but the cost is a factor worthy of consideration.

Critical Stages of Criminal Justice Process

In White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963), the Court found that defendants are entitled to counsel at any critical stage of the proceeding. This is defined as a stage in which the defendant is compelled to make a decision that may later formally be used against them. The Court has found the following court procedures to be critical stages. Feel free to follow the links in this section to learn more:

• The initial appearance in which the defendant enters a nonbinding plea: White v. Maryland, 373 U.S.59 (1963) [Website].
• A preliminary hearing: Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970) [Website].
• A lineup that includes a previously indicted defendant: Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) [Website] and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) [Website].

During Other Proceedings

The Court has extended the right to counsel to psychiatric examinations, juvenile delinquency proceedings (In re Gault, 1967), civil commitments proceedings (Stefan, 1985), and probation and parole hearings (see below). Further, the court in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), held that a defendant charged with a capital crime and ordered by the court to be examined by a psychiatrist to evaluate possible future dangerousness was entitled to consult with counsel. Similarly, in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988), the Court found prejudicial error occurred when defense counsel was not appointed to represent a defendant subjected to a psychiatric evaluation. The Court further held that counsel must be made aware of the projected psychiatric evaluation before it occurs. Feel free to learn more about Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) [Website] and Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988) [Website].

During Probation and Parole Revocation Hearings

In Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967), 17-year-old Jerry Douglas Mempa was placed on probation for two years after he pleaded guilty to “joyriding.” About four months later, the prosecutor moved to have the petitioner’s probation revoked, alleging that Mempa had committed a burglary while on probation. Mempa, who was not represented by counsel at the probation revocation hearing, admitted to being involved in the burglary. The court revoked his probation based on his admission to the burglary. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Mempa should have had counsel to assist him in his hearing. You are welcome to learn more about Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967) [Website].

Five years later, in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), the state sought to revoke the defendant’s probation. Originally, Gagnon was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for armed robbery, but the judge suspended the sentence’s imposition and placed him on seven years of probation instead. The Court found that the probation revocation hearing did not meet due process standards. Because a probation revocation involves a loss of liberty, the probationer was entitled to due process. The Court did not adopt a rule that all probationers must have the assistance of counsel in every revocation hearing but rather stated:

The decision as to the need for counsel must be made on a case-by-case basis. In every case in which a request for counsel at a preliminary or final hearing is refused, the grounds for refusal shall be stated succinctly in the record. (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973)

You are welcome to read the text of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) [Website].

Licenses and Attributions for When Does a Defendant Have the Right to Assistance of an Attorney?

Open Content, Shared Previously

“When Does a Defendant Have the Right to Assistance of an Attorney?” is adapted from “7.10. Courtroom Workgroup: Defense Attorneys” by Lore Rutz-Burri in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Sam Arungwa, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include minor edits.