NCJ Number
19745
Journal
Catholic University Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1975) Pages: 314-328
Date Published
1975
Length
15 pages
Annotation
IN THIS 1974 CASE, U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE RULE REQUIRING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON THE FIRST APPEAL AS OF RIGHT DID NOT EXTEND TO FURTHER DISCRETIONARY STATE APPEALS OR APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Abstract
THIS NOTE EXAMINES THIS DENIAL OF THE EXTENTION OF THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON SECOND OR DISCRETIONARY APPEALS IN LIGHT OF THE RIGHT TO SUCH ASSISTANCE ON THE FIRST APPEAL OF RIGHT AS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA (1963). THE MOFFITT DECISION IS ANALYZED ON THE BASIS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GROUNDS. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT WHILE THE BULK OF THE MAJORITY OPINION DEALT WITH THE QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPACT ON THE SUPREME MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THE DECISION, SINCE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT STATE-CREATED AND AN OPPOSITE RULING WOULD HAVE ACTED TO INVALIDATE CURRENT SUPREME COURT PRACTICES. A DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THE AUGUMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED AN OPPOSITE RULING IN MOFFIT, BUT WERE NOT COMPELLING ENOUGH TO PERSUADE A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, CONSIDERS THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL, THE PRACTICE OF PROVIDING COUNSEL IN THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, AND STUDIED OPINION THAT COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO ASSIST INDIGENTS IN ALL APPEALS.