White v. State of Maryland
| Decision Date | 29 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 600,600 |
| Citation | 10 L.Ed.2d 193,83 S.Ct. 1050,373 U.S. 59 |
| Parties | Robert Galloway WHITE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Fred E. Weisgal, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.
Robert F. Sweeney, Baltimore, Md., for respondent.
Petitioner, who was sentenced to death while his codefendant was given life, appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction. 227 Md. 615, 177 A.2d 877. We granted certiorari 'limited to the point of law raised in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114.' See 371 U.S. 909, 83 S.Ct. 259, 9 L.Ed.2d 169.
Petitioner was arrested on May 27, 1960, and brought before a magistrate on May 31, 1960, for a preliminary hearing. But that hearing was postponed and not actually held until August 9, 1960. At that time petitioner was not yet represented by a lawyer. When arraigned at that preliminary hearing he pleaded guilty. That Mary- land calls the 'arraignment' was first held September 8, 1960; but since petitioner was not represented by counsel, his arraignment was postponed and counsel appointed for him on September 9, 1960. He was finally arraigned on November 25, 1960, and entered pleas of 'not guilty' and 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' At his trial the plea of guilty made at the preliminary hearing on August 9, 1960, was introduced in evidence.* Since he did not have counsel at the time of the preliminary hearing, he argued that Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, applied. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that arraignment in Alabama is 'a critical stage in a criminal proceeding' where rights are preserved or lost (368 U.S. 53—54, 82 S.Ct. 158), while under Maryland law there was 'no requirement (nor any practical possibility under our present criminal procedure) to appoint counsel' for petitioner at the preliminary hearing * * * nor was it necessary for appellant to enter a plea at that time.' 227 Md., at 625, 177 A.2d, at 882.
Whatever may be the normal function of the 'preliminary hearing' under Maryland law, it was in this case as 'critical' a state as arraignment under Alabama law. For petitioner entered a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel.
We repeat what we said in Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, at 55, 82 S.Ct. at 159 that we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted: 'Only the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyman v. Aiken, Civ. A. No. 84-1763-1J.
...32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 55, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 1051, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 475-......
-
State v. Cushard
...that defenses not pleaded at arraignment were irrevocably waived and could not be raised at trial. In White v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 59, 60, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963), the Supreme Court also found structural error when a defendant did not have counsel at an arraignment and entered ......
-
People v. Roberts
...478, 486, 84 S.Ct. 1758; see Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 55, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114; White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 75-76, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 47......
-
Pope v. United States
...stage of the proceedings." Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961); Powell v. State of Alabama, ......
-
The future of Teague retroactivity, or "redressability," after Danforth v. Minnesota: why lower courts should give retroactive effect to new constitutional rules of criminal procedure in postconviction proceedings.
...retroactive effect); Arsenault v. Massachusetts, 393 U.S. 5 (1968) (per curium) (reversing state court decision holding White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963), as not (301.) Id. at 1039. (302.) Id. at 1034. (303.) While the Court's language in Whorton broadly referred to Crawford's applicabi......
-
Conditional Rules in Criminal Procedure: Alice in Wonderland Meets the Constitution
...States, 315 U.S. 60, 76 (1942); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 55 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59,60 (1963). • The due process right against participation of a judge with a financial interest in the outcome of the case. See Tumey v. Ohio,......
-
Don't Worry, I'll Be Right Back: Temporary Absences of Counsel During Criminal Trials and the Rule of Automatic Reversal
...the presence of counsel at "a critical stage," a phrase we used in Hamilton v. Alabama, 358 U.S. 52, 54 (1961), and White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60 (1963) (percuriam), to denote a step of a criminal proceeding, such as arraignment, that held significant consequences for the accused. Seco......
-
9.2 Right to Counsel
...(2007).[63] Hunter v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 221, 349 S.E.2d 154 (1986).[64] Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961).[65] Va. Code § 19.2-157.[66] United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); see also Moore v. Il......