373 U.S. 59 (1963)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Maryland

U.S.

Apr 29, 1963

373 U.S. 59 (1963)

Summary

holding that a preliminary hearing was a critical stage because the "petitioner entered a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel"

Summary of this case from United States v. Hakim

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 600.

Argued April 16, 1963. Decided April 29, 1963.

Arrested on a charge of murder, petitioner was taken before a Maryland magistrate for a preliminary hearing, and he pleaded guilty without having the advice or assistance of counsel. Counsel was later appointed for him, and he pleaded not guilty at his formal "arraignment"; but the plea of guilty made at the preliminary hearing was introduced in evidence at his trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. Held: Absence of counsel for petitioner when he entered the plea of guilty before the magistrate violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52. Pp. 59-60.

227 Md. 615, 177 A.2d 877, reversed.

Fred E. Weisgal argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, who was sentenced to death while his codefendant was given life, appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction. 227 Md. 615, 177 A.2d 877. We granted certiorari "limited to the point of law raised in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52." See 371 U.S. 909.

Petitioner was arrested on May 27, 1960, and brought before a magistrate on May 31, 1960, for a preliminary hearing. But that hearing was postponed and not actually held until August 9, 1960. At that time petitioner was not yet represented by a lawyer. When arraigned at that preliminary hearing he pleaded guilty. What Maryland calls the "arraignment" was first held September 8, 1960; but since petitioner was not represented by counsel, his arraignment was postponed and counsel appointed for him on September 9, 1960. He was finally arraigned on November 25, 1960, and entered pleas of "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." At his trial the plea of guilty made at the preliminary hearing on August 9, 1960, was introduced in evidence. Since he did not have counsel at the time of the preliminary hearing, he argued that Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, applied. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that arraignment in Alabama is "a critical stage in a criminal proceeding" where rights are preserved or lost ( 368 U.S. 53-54), while under Maryland law there was "no requirement (nor any practical possibility under our present criminal procedure) to appoint counsel" for petitioner at the "preliminary hearing . . . nor was it necessary for appellant to enter a plea at that time." 227 Md., at 625, 177 A.2d, at 882.

Although petitioner did not object to the introduction of this evidence at the trial ( 227 Md., at 619-620, 177 A.2d, at 879), the rationale of Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, does not rest, as we shall see, on a showing of prejudice.

Whatever may be the normal function of the "preliminary hearing" under Maryland law, it was in this case as "critical" a stage as arraignment under Alabama law. For petitioner entered a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel.

We repeat what we said in Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, at 55, that we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted: "Only the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently." We therefore hold that Hamilton v. Alabama governs and that the judgment below must be and is

Reversed.

Summaries of

White v. Maryland

U.S.

Apr 29, 1963

373 U.S. 59 (1963)

holding that a preliminary hearing was a critical stage because the "petitioner entered a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel"

Summary of this case from United States v. Hakim

holding that any proceeding where a criminal defendant "enter a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel," is presumed to have prejudiced that defendant

Summary of this case from Hereford v. Warren

holding that a "preliminary hearing" where the defendant was allowed to enter a plea constitutes a critical stage

Summary of this case from McDowell v. Kingston

holding that "[w]hatever may be the normal function of the 'preliminary hearing' under Maryland law, it was in this case as 'critical' a [stage] as arraignment under Alabama law" because "[w]hen arraigned at that preliminary hearing [the unrepresented defendant] pleaded guilty"

Summary of this case from State v. Woolery

holding that when defendant plead guilty at preliminary hearing in absence of defense counsel, Court did "not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted"

Summary of this case from Walker v. State

finding Maryland preliminary hearing a critical stage because defendant had to enter a plea, without any mention of prosecutor or contested issues

Summary of this case from Schmidt v. Foster

determining that preliminary hearing is critical stage where right to counsel cannot be infringed

Summary of this case from State v. Curry

vacating conviction, without regard to showing of prejudice because defendant did not have counsel at preliminary hearing

Summary of this case from In re Shawn P

vacating conviction, without regard to showing of prejudice, because defendant did not have counsel at preliminary hearing

Summary of this case from In re Christopher T

reversing conviction where defendant not represented by counsel at arraignment; “We repeat what we said in [Hamilton v. Alabama ], that we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted * * *.”

Summary of this case from People v. Maxey

In White v. Maryland an accused pleaded guilty when arraigned at a preliminary hearing, and at that time had no counsel to represent him.

Summary of this case from Arsenault v. Massachusetts

In White, the potential for prejudice was sufficient to vacate the conviction, even though the potential prejudice—admission into evidence of the guilty plea—could have been mitigated by counsel's presence and the opportunity to cross-examine.

Summary of this case from United States v. Roy

In White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60 (1963) (per curiam), the Supreme Court, without explicitly adopting it, repeated an appellate court's description of "a critical stage in a criminal proceeding" as one "where rights are preserved or lost."

Summary of this case from Ray v. MaClaren

presuming prejudice where defendant pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing before he was appointed counsel

Summary of this case from Morgan v. Hardy

presuming prejudice where defendant pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing before he was appointed counsel

Summary of this case from McDowell v. Kingston

establishing the right to counsel in plea hearings

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Kapture

In White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963), another capital case, the Supreme Court, per curiam, applied its Hamilton ruling to a Maryland pretrial procedure that had functioned similarly to an arraignment: the defendant, unrepresented by counsel, pleaded guilty even though he was not obligated to enter any plea at the hearing, and the prosecution later used evidence of that plea against him in a trial that followed a subsequent not-guilty plea.

Summary of this case from Van v. Jones

In White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963), also cited in Holloway, the defendant pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing, at which he was not represented by counsel.

Summary of this case from Fleming v. Kemp

In White and in Arsenault, the accused had entered a guilty plea at a preliminary hearing when he was unrepresented by counsel, and in both cases the plea was admitted at trial.

Summary of this case from Phillips v. State of North Carolina

In White, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing where a plea of guilty was entered.

Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. Dickerson v. Rundle

In White, the Supreme Court said that counsel was required at a preliminary hearing because the hearing at which the defendant pleaded guilty, although not required to do so, was a critical stage in the criminal prosecution.

Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. Dickerson v. Rundle

In White the defendant pleaded guilty without a lawyer at the preliminary hearing after having been in custody for over two months.

Summary of this case from Kerr v. Dutton

In White, the accused was without counsel at his preliminary hearing where he pled guilty. Subsequently, counsel was appointed to represent him, the earlier plea was withdrawn and the cause proceeded to trial.

Summary of this case from Lundberg v. Buchkoe

In White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963), the accused was without counsel at the preliminary hearing.

Summary of this case from Tynan v. Eyman

In White, the defendant, without advice of counsel, incriminated himself by his guilty plea, and his doing so is what made the proceeding "critical" as to him.

Summary of this case from Gilbert v. United States

White v. Maryland

Summary

Opinion

White v. Maryland

White v. Maryland

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

White v. Maryland

Summary

Opinion

White v. Maryland

White v. Maryland

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations