Powell v. Alabama

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that in a capital trial the defendant must be given access to counsel if the defendant requests it.

Case

The case stems from events that occurred in 1931. Nine African-Americans—Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson, Andy Wright, Roy Wright, and Eugene Williams—were accused of raping two white women in a freight car while passing through the state of Alabama.

The group, commonly known as Scottsboro Boys. Were traveling in a freight train with seven white males and two females. A fight broke out and all of the white males, except for one, were thrown from the train. The women accused the Scottsboro Boys of rape, but one woman later retracted her claim. All of the defendants, except Roy Wright, were sentenced to death in a series of one-day trials. The defendants were only given access to their lawyers immediately prior to the trial, leaving little or no time to plan the defense. The ruling was appealed on the grounds that group was not provided adequate legal counsel. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 6–1 that the trial was fair (the strongly dissenting opinion was from the Chief Justice Anderson) and it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decision

The majority opinion decided that due process had been violated. The ruling was based on three main arguments, "(1) They were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; (3) They were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded."

The opinion noted that the atmosphere around the case was quite hostile; the prisoners were always escorted by the military and the trial took place in the presence of a "hostile and excited public". The judge never asked the defendants if they wanted counsel and he did not attempt to contact relatives of the defendants. A fairer trial could have been obtained by granting a delay in the case to allow for the defense to prepare, and also by providing additional counsel. It was also noted that some key witnesses to the crime never testified. The issue of Mr. Roddy, the defendants' informal counsel, was unclear. It seems the judge was not concerned that Mr. Roddy was neither familiar with Alabama legal procedures nor was a member of the local bar. The opinion includes several pages of dialogue between Roddy, the judge, and Mr. Moody that was used to prove that the issue of counsel was taken too lightly. By the morning of the trial, no lawyer had been formally named the defendants' representative and there was no preparation before the trial began. Mr. Moody, a local lawyer, promised to help Mr. Roddy run the defense in order to make the trial fair. The opinion called Mr. Moody's promise "dubious", said Mr. Roddy had "little experience" and said, "there was no defense" .The opinion concluded, "In light of the fact outlined in the forepart of this opinion- . . . we think the failure of the trial court to give them reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel was a clear denial of due process."

Subsequent history

Whether or not the Powell v. Alabama decision applied to non-capital cases sparked heated debate. Betts v. Brady initially decided that unless there were special circumstances like illiteracy, stupidity or being in an especially complicated trial, there was no need for a court appointed attorney. That decision was ultimately overturned in Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to be provided an attorney in all criminal cases.

External links

• Summary of Powell v. Alabama