The petitioner was denied counsel in a Florida state court despite requesting it, as Florida law only allowed counsel for capital offenses. The United States Supreme Court overruled Betts v. Brady, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not necessarily require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants charged with a felony. The Court concluded that the Constitution guarantees the assistance of counsel to indigent defendants. The right to counsel is essential to protect the fundamental human rights of life and liberty, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The decision to overrule Betts v. Brady is supported by 22 States, while Florida and two other States have asked that it be left intact.

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the appointment of counsel for all persons charged with serious crimes, including capital offenses. The Sixth Amendment also mandates the appointment of counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The distinction between capital and noncapital offenses has been increasingly eroded, and the Constitution does not permit a difference in the process based on the perceived difference in penalty. The current decision erases the basis for such a distinction and ensures due process of law for both the deprivation of "life" and "liberty." Prejudice is assumed when one pleads to a capital charge without benefit of counsel. The author agrees with the Court's decision.

The author suggests that Betts v. Brady should be overruled because it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The Court recognized the possibility of special circumstances in noncapital trials that would require appointed counsel, but insisted that such circumstances be shown to establish a denial of due process. The right to appointed counsel was broader in federal prosecutions, but imposing these requirements on the States would have been an abrupt break with the past. The "special circumstances" rule for appointed counsel in noncapital cases has been eroded, with special circumstances often found in little more than the complexity of legal questions presented. The Court has recognized that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge constitutes special circumstances requiring counsel at trial. However, many state courts have not fully recognized this evolution, and continuing to apply the Betts v. Brady rule, which is only honored with lip service by the Court, will do disservice to the federal system.