United States v. Gouveia

Background

Six inmates at a federal prison in Lompoc were suspected of murdering fellow prisoners and were placed in the prison’s Administrative Detention Unit (ADU). Four men were kept in ADU for about 19 months and two others for about eight months before federal grand juries returned indictments. While confined, the inmates were separated from the general population and put in individual cells, but they kept visitation, exercise time, access to legal materials, and unmonitored phone calls. They had no appointed lawyers until they were arraigned and counsel was provided.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel for indigent inmates while they are held in administrative segregation but before formal charges are filed. The Ninth Circuit had said that detention like this becomes an “accusation” after 90 days and thus triggers the right to counsel. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the right to appointed counsel attaches only at or after adversary judicial proceedings begin (for example, indictment or arraignment). The Court explained that concerns about delay and lost evidence are addressed by other protections like statutes of limitations and the Fifth Amendment’s due process rule, not by expanding the Sixth Amendment right to pre-charge detention.

Real world impact

As a result, inmates held in administrative segregation generally cannot require appointed lawyers until formal criminal proceedings begin. The ruling leaves in place other protections (for example, due-process and speedy-trial claims) and does not decide when the speedy-trial right attaches in this context. The Court also did not resolve the proper remedy for preindictment delay.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed with the judgment but cautioned the Court’s broad wording. Justice Marshall dissented, arguing the record showed the detention played an accusatory role and that prejudice warranted dismissal.