Powell v.

Alabama
Citation. Powell v. Ala., 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158, 1932
U.S. LEXIS 5, 84 A.L.R. 527 (U.S. Nov. 7, 1932)
Brief Fact Summary. African-Americans accused of rape were not given
adequate counsel.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and
is incapable of making his own defense” it is the duty of the court, whether
requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process
of law; and that duty is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under
such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and
trial of the case.”

Facts. A group of African-American youths were on a freight train through

Alabama. They got into a fight with some white youths, throwing the white boys
from the train. A message was sent, requesting all blacks be removed from the
train. Two white girls on the train testified that they had been raped by six different
youths in turn. The youths were taken into custody. The community was very
hostile, as a mob met the youths. The trial judge appointed “all members of the
bar” for the purpose of the arraignment. The defendants themselves were illiterate
and “ignorant”. They were all tried separately, each trial lasting a day, convicted,
and sentenced to death.

Issue.

” Whether the defendants had sufficient counsel.

” Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been
violated.

Held.

” No, the “defendants were not accorded the right of counsel in any substantial
sense.” The Supreme Court first observed that by appointing “all members of the
bar” for the arraignment, “such designation of counsel ” was either so indefinite or
so close upon the trial as to amount to a denial of effective and substantial aid.”
This unknown number of members “would not” have been given that clear
appreciation of responsibility or impressed with that individual sense of duty which
should and naturally would accompany the appointment of a selected member of
the bar.” The “ignorant” and “illiterate” status of the defendants, coupled with the
hostility of community “were” put in peril” within the first moments of
representation. Finally, the Court noted that when counsel was in place that
“neither [the defense counsel] nor the court could say what a prompt and
thoroughgoing investigation might disclose as to facts” as there had been no
proper investigation, and no opportunity to do so.

” No. Given the hostile circumstances, the illiterate status of the defendants, the
close surveillance, their isolation from their families, and that they “stood in
deadly peril of their lives,” the failure of the trial court to “give them reasonable
time and opportunity to secure counsel was a clear denial of due process.”

Discussion. “The necessity of counsel [is] so vital and imperative that the failure
of the trial court to make an effective appointment of counsel was likewise a denial
of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”