Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008)
Primary Holding
The right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment attaches at the first appearance before a judicial officer where a defendant is informed of the formal accusation against him, but it does not require that a public prosecutor be aware of or involved in that initial proceeding.
In the case of Rothgery v. Gillespie County, a man named Walter Rothgery was arrested based on a mistaken belief that he had a criminal record. When he was brought before a judge for the first time, he was informed of the charges against him, and the Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to a lawyer at that moment. This decision is important because it ensures that anyone facing legal charges has access to legal help right from their first court appearance, protecting their rights and making sure they can defend themselves effectively. If you are ever arrested and taken to court, this case means you should be provided with a lawyer to help you understand the charges and navigate the legal process.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Rothgery v. Gillespie County, the underlying events began when Walter A. Rothgery was arrested on July 15, 2002, based on an erroneous criminal background check that indicated he had a felony conviction. The arresting officers, lacking a warrant, brought Rothgery before a magistrate judge for an initial appearance, known as an article 15.17 hearing, where he was formally informed of the accusation of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. During this hearing, the magistrate determined that probable cause existed for the arrest, set bail at $5,000, and committed Rothgery to jail. Although he made several requests for appointed counsel, these requests were ignored. Rothgery was subsequently indicted by a grand jury in January 2003, leading to his rearrest and an increase in bail to $15,000. The procedural history of the case involved Rothgery's appeals following his experiences in the criminal justice system. After remaining in jail for three weeks due to his inability to post bail, he was finally assigned a lawyer on January 23, 2003, six months after his initial hearing. This attorney was able to secure a bail reduction and confirm that Rothgery had never been convicted of a felony. Rothgery filed a lawsuit against Gillespie County, arguing that his right to counsel had been violated because he was not provided an attorney during the critical stages of his case. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The relevant background context includes the legal framework surrounding the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court had previously established that this right attaches at the first appearance before a judicial officer where a defendant is informed of the charges against them and restrictions on their liberty are imposed. The case raised the question of whether the involvement of a public prosecutor at this initial proceeding is necessary for the attachment of the right to counsel, a matter that the Court ultimately clarified in its decision.
Whether the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment attaches at the first appearance before a judicial officer, and if so, whether it requires that a public prosecutor be aware of or involved in that initial proceeding.
The judgment is reversed and remanded.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 17, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)
Consumer WonA criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the counsel of their choice, and an erroneous deprivation of that right requires reversal of a conviction.
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007)
Consumer LostThe decision to grant an evidentiary hearing in federal habeas relief cases rests within the discretion of the district court, and such a hearing is not warranted if the applicant cannot make out a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008)
Consumer LostA state may insist that a criminal defendant, who is found mentally competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself, proceed with legal counsel, thereby denying the defendant the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment.
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005)
Consumer LostEven when a capital defendant's family members and the defendant himself suggest that no mitigating evidence is available, defense counsel is required by the Sixth Amendment to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that the prosecution will likely use as evidence of aggravation during the sentencing phase of trial.