Foster v. Illinois/Dissent Black

Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice MURPHY and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE join, dissenting.

In Adamson v. California, this day decided, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, the Court waters down the Fourteenth Amendment's application to the States of the Bill of Rights guarantee against self-incrimination so as to make it compatible with the Court's standards of decency and a fair trial. In this case the Court similarly waters down the Bill of Rights guarantee of counsel in criminal cases. In both cases, the Court refuses to strike down convictions obtained in disregard of Bill of Rights guarantees, assuming all the while that identical convictions obtained in federal courts would violate the Bill of Rights. For the Court, in the instant case, concedes that, by virtue of the Sixth Amendment, 'counsel must be furnished to an indigent defendant prosecuted in a federal court in every case, whatever the circumstances.' This, of course, relates to convictions following both pleas of not guilty and pleas of guilty. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398; Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U.S. 485, 65 S.Ct. 370, 89 L.Ed. 407.

In the Adamson case, I have voiced my objections to dilution of constitutional protections against self-incrimination in state courts. This decision is another example of the consequences which can be produced by substitution of this Court's day-to-day opinion of what kind of trial is fair and decent for the kind of trial which the Bill of Rights guarantees. This time it is the right of counsel. We cannot know what Bill of Rights provision will next be attenuated by the Court. We can at least be sure that there will be more, so long as the Court adheres to the doctrine of this and the Adamson case.

The Court's decision relies heavily on Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. In that case, a man on relief, too poor to hire a lawyer, and whose request for the appointment of a lawyer was denied, was compelled to act as his own lawyer on a charge of robbery. Conviction followed. That case is precedent for this one. But it is the kind of precedent that I had hoped this Court would not perpetuate.

One thing more. The Court seems to fear that protecting these defendants' right to counsel to the full extent defined in the Bill of Rights would furnish 'opportunities hitherto uncontemplated for opening wide the prison doors of the land,' because presumably, there are many people like Betts, Foster and Payne behind those doors after trials without having had the benefit of counsel. I do not believe that such a reason is even relevant to a determination that we should decline to enforce the Bill of Rights.