Jones v. Barnes

Background

A man convicted after a 1976 robbery and assault asked his court-appointed appellate lawyer to raise several specific errors on appeal. The lawyer picked a few points, filed those arguments and the defendant’s pro se briefs, and the state courts affirmed. The defendant later argued in federal courts that his appointed appellate lawyer had been ineffective for refusing to press every nonfrivolous claim the defendant requested.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Constitution requires appointed appellate counsel to press every nonfrivolous issue a client wants. The majority said no. The Court explained that there is no constitutional right to force counsel to present every colorable point and that effective advocacy normally involves choosing the strongest issues rather than advancing every possible argument. The opinion relied on professional practice, Anders v. California, and practical limits on appellate briefing to support giving lawyers discretion to select issues.

Real world impact

The decision means defendants cannot constitutionally compel appointed appellate lawyers to argue all nonfrivolous points. Lawyers retained or appointed for appeals may exercise professional judgment in picking issues to brief and argue. The Court left open other remedies — for example, habeas corpus review or state-law claims — but did not decide those collateral options in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall) dissented, arguing the Sixth Amendment’s right to “assistance of counsel” includes a defendant’s personal right to have counsel press nonfrivolous issues the defendant insists on and would remand for factual findings. Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment but urged that, as an ethical matter, counsel should follow a client’s choice and noted habeas relief may be available.