Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel did not automatically apply to indigent defendants in state felony trials. The 6–3 ruling let states decide when to provide a lawyer, subject only to a case-by-case fairness review, and it governed state criminal practice until the Court overruled it in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.1Legal Information Institute. Gideon v. Wainwright
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Betts was indicted for robbery in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Maryland. He told the court he could not afford a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint one. The judge refused, explaining that the county’s practice was to appoint counsel only in murder and rape cases.2Legal Information Institute. Betts v. Brady
Betts represented himself at trial, cross-examined the state’s witnesses, and called his own. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years.2Legal Information Institute. Betts v. Brady
The Constitutional Question
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the assistance of counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. The question in Betts was whether that guarantee reached the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so that a state judge would be constitutionally required to appoint a lawyer for a defendant too poor to hire one.1Legal Information Institute. Gideon v. Wainwright
The 6–3 Ruling
Justice Owen Roberts, writing for the majority, declined to apply the Sixth Amendment’s counsel guarantee to state trials. The federal government had to provide counsel; the states did not, at least not in every felony case. Whether the absence of a lawyer violated the Constitution turned on what the Court called fundamental fairness, judged on the facts of the particular case.2Legal Information Institute. Betts v. Brady
The majority treated the appointment of counsel as a question of state legislative policy rather than a fixed constitutional command. A rigid federal rule, the Court reasoned, would intrude on the sovereignty of state courts. States could therefore continue their existing practices unless the specific circumstances of a trial rendered it unfair.3Justia. Betts v. Brady
The Fundamental Fairness Test
Under the rule Betts established, a reviewing court looked at the totality of the facts to decide whether the lack of a lawyer had denied the defendant a fair trial. Poverty alone did not trigger a right to appointed counsel. Judges asked whether the defendant could handle his own defense or whether something about the case — the charge, the defendant’s capacity, the complexity of the proceedings — made a lawyer necessary.2Legal Information Institute. Betts v. Brady
Because the standard was subjective, results varied widely from state to state and courtroom to courtroom. Many indigent defendants went to trial without professional help.3Justia. Betts v. Brady
How Gideon v. Wainwright Overruled Betts
The Court abandoned the fundamental fairness approach in 1963. Gideon v. Wainwright overruled Betts and held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, so that indigent defendants in state felony cases must be provided a lawyer.1Legal Information Institute. Gideon v. Wainwright