to hire an attorney who would assist them during the trial. Later, the Court held that the Due Process 
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to a fair trial, and a fair trial includes 
the right to the assistance of counsel. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, at 58 (1932), the Court concluded 
that the focus on trial was too narrow. It stated, “[T]he most critical period of the proceeding[s] against the 
defendants might be that period from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when 
consultation, thoroughgoing investigation, and preparation are vitally important. Defendants are as much 
entitled to . . . [counsel’s] aid during that period as at the trial itself.” 
1 
Powell also dealt with the need for states to provide representation to defendants who could not afford to 
hire counsel in those cases where fundamental fairness required it. In a statement that led to the dramatic 
extensions to the right to counsel, the Court continued, 
“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right 
to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has a small and sometimes no skill 
in the science of law. If charged with a crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself 
whether the indictment is good or bad.  He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without 
the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent 
evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and 
knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he may have a perfect one. He requires the 
guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he is not 
guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” 
2 
287 U.S. 45, at 68-69 (1932) 
Powell was decided in 1932, and because of television and the multitude of crime drama programs, 
people probably know more about the criminal justice process than ever imagined by the Powell court. 
Nevertheless, the Court’s admonitions still ring true. Not too many non-lawyers know how to conduct 
themselves at trial, challenge the state’s evidence, make evidentiary objections, or file proper pretrial 
motions with the rudimentary knowledge gained from watching television. One could consult with the 
many great Internet sources that are easily accessible, however, many individuals charged with crimes have 
limited education and lack the sophistication to distinguish between those sources that are applicable to 
their case and which are not. 
Between Powell (1932) and the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Court decided 
when the appointment of counsel was necessary for a fair trial in state prosecutions on a case-by-case basis. 
In Gideon, however, the Court held that this case-by case-approach was inappropriate.  It held that the 
state had to provide poor defendants access to counsel in every state felony prosecution. Lawyers in serious 
criminal cases, it said, were “necessities, not luxuries”. Since Gideon, the Court has extended the obligation 
to provide counsel to state misdemeanors prosecutions that result in the defendant receiving a jail term. 
The Court found that the legal problems presented in a misdemeanor case often are just as complex as those 
1. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, at 58 (1932) 
2. Powell v. Alabama, 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
298