DeJoseph v. Connecticut

1966-12-05

Headline: Right to a court-appointed lawyer denied for a man jailed over a misdemeanor support charge, and the Court refused to review, leaving inconsistent treatment across Connecticut courts.

Holding: The Court denied review of a Connecticut conviction where a man who said he was indigent was denied an appointed lawyer for a misdemeanor support charge, leaving conflicting lower-court rulings in place.

Real World Impact:

Leaves misdemeanor defendants unclear if they must receive appointed counsel.
Permits inconsistent outcomes for similar defendants across Connecticut courts.
Allows some indigent defendants to remain jailed without an appointed lawyer.

Topics: right to counsel, criminal misdemeanors, indigent defendants, inconsistent court rulings

Summary

Background

A man in Connecticut was charged with criminal nonsupport, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. At his arraignment he said he had no money for a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint one, but the judge said appointment was not possible because it was only a misdemeanor. At trial he again asked for a lawyer, but the judge ignored him. He tried to defend himself, was convicted, and was sentenced to six months. The state appellate court affirmed, noting he had not followed a local practice rule requiring a formal request for a finding on indigency.

Reasoning

The key question is whether the constitutional right to an appointed lawyer (Gideon v. Wainwright) applies in this situation. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the lower courts’ decision in place. Justice Stewart, joined by Justices Black and Douglas, said the denial was wrong and emphasized the need for the Court to clarify Gideon. He noted a federal district judge in Arbo v. Hegstrom set aside the identical Connecticut offense because the defendant had not been told of his right to counsel and that defendant was released.

Real world impact

Because the high court refused review, the issue remains unsettled in Connecticut. Practically, this means some indigent people charged with misdemeanors may be jailed without a court-appointed lawyer while others in similar circumstances are released. The decision does not finally decide the constitutional question and could be revisited later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart’s dissent, joined by Justices Black and Douglas, urged the Court to hear the case to stop inconsistent treatment and to make clear when indigent misdemeanor defendants must get lawyers.