About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

11 Oyez Oyez Bull. Sec. Jud. Admin. 1 (1968)

handle is hein.journals/oyzoyz11 and id is 1 raw text is: 

The Bulletin of the Section of





o yez!I


Judicial Administration






  oyez!


CHAIRMAN'S COLUMN
To the Members of the Section of Judicial Administration
     As this issue goes to press, we are preparing for the
Midyear  Meeting of the Council which will be held in
Chicago commencing  Saturday, February 17, 1968. At
its meeting at 2:00 p.m. that day the Council will discuss
and act upon seven reports developed by the Advisory
Committees  of the American Bar Association's Special
Committee on Minimum
Standards for the Adminis-
tration of Criminal Justice.
Chief  Judge  J.  Edward
Lumbard of the United
States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit is Chair-
man   of this special com-
mittee.
     The reports to be con-
sidered are (1) Fair Trial
and  Free Press  compiled
by the Advisory Committee     C.  Frank Reinyder
under the Chairmanship of Justice Paul C. Reardon of
Massachusetts, (2) Post  Conviction Remedies and
(3)  Appellate Review of Sentences compiled by the
Advisory Committee  under the Chairmanship of Judge
Simon E. Sobeloff of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth  Circuit, (4) Pleas of Guilty, (5)
Speedy Trial and (6) Joinder and Severance com-
piled by the Advisory Committee under the Chairman-
ship of Justice Walter V. Schaefer of Illinois, and (7)
Providing Defense Services compiled by the Advisory
Committee  under the Chairmanship of Judge Warren E.
Burger of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. The Lumbard Committee
will present these reports to the House of Delegates for
action by the Association commencing at 2:00 p.m. on
Monday,  February 19, 1968. As I am  sure you know,
the Section of Judicial Administration, together with the
Section of Criminal Law, has been a co-sponsor of the
work  of the Lumbard Committee  and your Section of-
ficers have remained in close contact with the project.
I am confident that each of you shares my pride in the
outstanding work that has been done by the Lumbard
Committee  and its Advisory Committees.
     The Council of the Section will also meet on Sun-
day, February 18 at which time it will consider a number
of problems in the field of judicial administration as well
as receive interim reports of the work of several of the
                (Continued on page 2)


    RIGHT TO COUNSEL EXTENDED

    In  a unanimous  decision, the United States Su-
preme  Court recently held that persons on probation
have a right to the assistance of counsel in proceedings
for revocation of probation or to reimpose a suspended
sentence.
     The decision, written by Mr. Justice Thurgood
Marshall, requires that counsel for persons on probation
must be permitted to participate in revocation hearings,
or when the probationer is indigent, that the state must
appoint an attorney to represent him. Calling the ruling
a natural extension of the Court's 1963 decision in
Gideon v. Wainwright, Marshall said that counsel is re-
quired at every stage of a criminal proceeding where
subtantial rights of an accused may be affected.
     The Court's decision came in two cases appealed
from the State of Washington, in which Douglas Mempa
and William E. Walkling had been committed to prison
at hearings at which they were not represented by coun-
sel. Mempa  had been involved in a burglary while he
was on probation, and the judge directed that he serve
the ten year burglary sentence originally imposed. Walk-
ling, who was on probation from a burglary conviction,
subsequently was accused of fourteen forgery offenses,
and was  committed to serve the fifteen year burglary
sentence previously imposed. Attorneys for the State of
Washington contended that the men had been adequate-
ly represented at their trials, and that probation was an
act of grace by the State not required by the Constitu-
tion. They said, therefore, that the hearing amounted to
deferred sentencing, at which no attorney was necessary.
     In another case, the Court held in a 6-3 decision
that a conviction obtained at a trial at which a defendant
was not represented by counsel could not be used against
him to enhance his punishment in a subsequent criminal
case, in which he has been convicted. Mr. Justice William
0. Douglas, who wrote the majority opinion, held that
the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment
would  be undermined if states were permitted to sen-
tence persons to long prison terms under so-called habi-
tual criminal statutes based upon pre-Gideon convic-
tions in which the defendant had not been represented
by counsel. In the trial of the defendant, James C. Bur-
gett, in a Texas court, the jury had been told of an
earlier forgery conviction in Tennessee, which was ob-
tained at a trial at which Burgett had.not been repre-
sented by counsel.


VOL. 11, NO. I
FEBRUARY, 1968


I T

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most