Powell v. Alabama PDF

Preview

Summary

Court Case...

Description

Skyler Riddle Powell v. Alabama (1932) 7-2

Justice Sutherland

Facts: As nine African American youth males were riding in an open boxcar to a train they were accompanied by seven Caucasian males, and two Caucasian females. During that time, both groups of men got into a fight, and the Caucasian males being thrown off out of the train. The Caucasian females then stated that they were raped by the nine African American males. The African American males were accused of allegedly raping two Caucasian women. All nine of the African American males were sentenced to death after the case was heard through the legal proceedings. Under Alabama law, appointment of counsel in capital cases is permitted, however the legal counsel does not consult with their clients during that period. Issue: Whether the trials violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment? Held: Yes. Reasoning: The trials were denied due process on the grounds that the defendants were not given a reasonable time, as well as opportunity to reply on their legal counsel. Also, the right-tocounsel is not guaranteed within the Sixth amendment, the Court implicated that guarantee. The Court also found that under circumstances as this one it was evident to assume the necessity of counsel, and the trial court’s failure to appoint this vital counsel was a denial of due process under the Fourteenth amendment. The right to have counsel appointed to your case is a logical corollary from the constitutional right to be heard by counsel. Dissent: (Butler) The majority opinion of the Court found that the men were denied the right to counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consolation and opportunity of preparation for trail. However, if that was true then these men were denied due process and are therefore entitled to have the judgements that are against them reversed, however this factor is not present in their case. Also, their silence shows a finding that this claim is groundless due to if it had any merit they were bound to support it. The Court shall not extend federal authority into a field which is occupied by several states. (McReynolds concurs in this dissenting opinion)...