Johnson v. Zerbst

Johnson v. Zerbst
Reference: 304 U.S. 458
Term: 1937
Important Dates
Argued: April 4, 1938 Decided: May 23, 1938
Majority
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes • Hugo Black • Louis Brandeis • Owen Roberts • Harlan Fiske Stone
Concurring
Stanley Reed
Dissenting
Pierce Butler • James C. McReynolds

Johnson v. Zerbst was decided on May 23, 1938, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is famous for the court's expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to indigent defendants in all federal criminal trials, unless a knowing, intelligent, and competent waiver of counsel is evidenced. Prior to the court's opinion in Johnson, federal criminal courts appointed "counsel in most cases based on the judge’s discretion. But here, the Court construed the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel to mean that, in federal courts, counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel in all trials."

Questions presented: Does the Sixth Amendment require a mandatory appointment of counsel in all federal criminal cases or is that appointment subject to judicial discretion in the absence of a waiver?

Case background

On November 21, 1934, John Johnson and an accomplice were arrested in Charleston, South Carolina. The pair were charged with "feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing twenty-one such notes." At the time, both were enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on leave. They were detained but were unable to post bail. On January 21, 1935, both men were indicted. Though the court record indicated that both men were represented by counsel in preliminary hearings prior to being bound over to grand jury, the defendants were not able to pay for counsel at trial. At their arraignment on January 23, 1935, in which they plead not guilty, the defendants were asked by the judge if they had counsel. The defendants said that they did not have counsel, but when asked by the judge if they were ready to proceed to trial, the defendants said they were. After their arraignment, the defendants were tried, convicted, and sentenced to four and a half years in federal prison on January 23, 1935.

During the course of his incarceration, Johnson filed a petition for habeas relief in U.S. District Court arguing that his uncounseled conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At his habeas hearing, Johnson provided evidence that a request for counsel was made not to the trial judge, but to the district attorney, who informed Johnson that the state of South Carolina provided counsel to indigent defendants only in instances where the defendant was charged with a capital felony; the district attorney, however, denied that Johnson and his accomplice had either requested counsel or that the district attorney informed them they did not have a right to counsel. The judge presiding over the hearing also acknowledged that Johnson and his accomplice "asked the jailer to call a lawyer for them, but they were not permitted to contact one. They did not, however, undertake to get any message to the judge." The habeas hearing record also indicated that after Johnson and his accomplice arrived at the penitentiary on January 25, 1935, "they were placed in isolation and so kept for sixteen days without being permitted to communicate with any one except the officers of the institution, but they did see the officers daily. They were no [sic] request of the officers to be permitted to see a lawyer, nor did they ask the officers to present to the trial judge a motion for new trial or application for appeal or notice that they desired to move for a new trial or to take an appeal. On May 15, 1935, petitioners filed applications for appeal which were denied because filed too late" because the time for filing a motion for new trial and for taking an appeal was limited to three to five days. The district court denied Johnson's habeas petition. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

Oral argument

Oral argument was held on April 4, 1938.

Decision

The decision was reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Opinion

Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion for five of the six justices in the majority. Justice Black began his opinion with a discussion of the importance and necessity of counsel, particularly to the pro se defendant, and his reasons as to why federal courts cannot limit the right:

“

The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not 'still be done.' It embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel. That which is simple, orderly, and necessary to the lawyer-to the untrained layman-may appear intricate, complex, and mysterious. Consistently with the wise policy of the Sixth Amendment and other parts of our fundamental charter, this Court has pointed to '... the humane policy of the modern criminal law ...' which now provides that a defendant '... if he be poor, ... may have counsel furnished him by the state, ... not infrequently ... more able than the attorney for the state.' The '... right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself wheter the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.' The Sixth Amendment withholds from federal courts, in all criminal proceedings, the power and authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty unless he has or waives the assistance of counsel.

”

What constitutes a waiver of the right to counsel?

Justice Black evaluated the claim that the petitioners here waived their right to counsel, a contention that Justice Pierce Butler, in dissent, believed that Johnson and his accomplice had done. Justice Black wrote:

“

There is insistence here that petitioner waived this constitutional right. The District Court did not so find ... A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused ... The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused- whose life or liberty is at stake-is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.

”

Could Johnson's error be corrected by habeas relief?

Justice Black next addressed whether Johnson's request for habeas relief was a permissible legal remedy. The district judge hearing Johnson's habeas appeal did not believe so, even though the judge stated, "It is unfortunate, if petitioners lost their right to a new trial through their ignorance or negligence, but such misfortune cannot give this court jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case to review and correct the errors complained of."

Justice Black argued that such a view of habeas relief need not be so restrictive, noting that the Congress had expanded habeas relief under the Sixth Amendment since the amendment's adoption,

“

The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a right to counsel is to protect an accused from conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty would be nullified by a determination that an accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes the protection of the Constitution. True, habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities-not involving the question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of trial; and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error.' ... These principles, however, must be construed and applied so as to preserve-not destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a proceeding, 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, either in respect to the subject-matter or to the person, even if such inquiry (involves) an examination of facts outside of, but not inconsistent with, the record.' Congress has expanded the rights of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '... effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, chap. 2, a more searching investigation, in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention, and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.' 'There being no doubt of the authority of the Congress to thus liberalize the common-law procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States against infringement through any violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty established thereunder, it results that under the sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention, although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him. ... '... it is open to the courts of the United States, upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to look beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of the matter ....'

”

Given Justice Black's view that Congressional authority was sufficient to expand judicial habeas review and relief, Justice Black argued that, in fact, rather than precluding relief, Johnson's habeas petition was likely his only recourse for relief: "it necessarily follows that no legal procedural remedy is available to grant relief for a violation of constitutional rights, unless the courts protect petitioner's rights by habeas corpus ... To deprive a citizen of his only effective remedy would not only be contrary to the 'rudimentary demands of justice' but destructive of a constitutional guaranty specifically designed to prevent injustice."

Holding

The court reversed the lower court's decision to deny habeas relief. In so doing, Justice Black pronounced a new rule in federal courts that counsel must be afforded to all federal criminal defendants:

“

Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. A court's jurisdiction at the hearing of trial may be lost 'in the course of the proceedings' due to failure to complete the court-as the Sixth Amendment requires-by providing counsel for an accused who is unable to obtain counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. A judge of the United States-to whom a petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as alleged they make the trial absolutely void.' ... Where a defendant, without counsel, acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus, the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of Counsel. If in a habeas corpus hearing, he does meet this burden and convinces the court by a preponderance of evidence that he neither had counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right to counsel, it is the duty of the court to grant the writ.

”

Concluding that the district court erred in dismissing Johnson's habeas claim, the court remanded the case back to that court for additional proceedings on Johnson's petition.

Concurrences

Justice Stanley Reed did not join the court's opinion but did concur in the reversal.

Dissents

Justice James C. McReynolds stated that he would have affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

Justice Pierce Butler stated that the record sufficiently demonstrated that the petitioners waived counsel, that the trial court had jurisdiction, and that the circuit court decision should have been affirmed.

Impact

As a result of the court's opinion in this case, the court expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to indigent defendants in all federal criminal trials, unless a knowing, intelligent, and competent waiver of counsel is evidenced.

Case notes

• Justice Benjamin Cardozo took no part in the consideration or disposition of the case.
• Neither Justice Reed nor either of the dissenting justices authored separate opinions in the case.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court

External links

• Supreme Court of the United States