Talk:Right to counsel

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tyram99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

court decision
the below quote is not from a US Supreme Court decision. It is from a New Jersey supreme court decision.

>The United States Supreme Court unananimously held that, regardless of whether the proceeding is >lablelled as civil, criminal, or administrative, if a defendant faces a loss of liberty, she or he is >entitled to appointed counsel if indigent. Anne Pasqua, et al v. Hon. Gerald J. Council, et al 186 >N.J. 127 (2006) (March 2006).

Possible constraints or exceptions
At least one source suggests that the right to council is only guaranteed in a criminal case if your liberty, not your property, is in jeopardy. So in at least certain criminal cases if the only thing that's in jeopardy is your property you may not be entitled to a right to council.

Ladar Levison from Lavabit writes

"With such short notice, my first attorney was unable to appear alongside me in court. Because the whole case was under seal, I couldn't even admit to anyone who wasn't an attorney that I needed a lawyer, let alone why. In the days before my appearance, I would spend hours repeating the facts of the case to a dozen attorneys, as I sought someone else that was qualified to represent me. I also discovered that as a third party in a federal criminal indictment, I had no right to counsel. After all, only my property was in jeopardy – not my liberty. Finally, I was forced to choose between appearing alone or facing a bench warrant for my arrest. "

[emphasis added]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140520/06343727291/ladar-levison-explains-how-us-legal-system-was-stacked-against-lavabit.shtml

A more reliable source might be needed for now but if this is true it is probably worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom
If I read this right, in the United Kingdom, at present, a criminal defendant can be tried and convicted without representation by counsel and none will be provided if they cannot afford representation. An appeal on the grounds of inadequate representation would produce what result? Would there be any part of European law which would apply with respect to these questions? Fred Bauder 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate premise
This article is based on the premise that the only laws regarding a right to counsel have to do with the right to counsel in a criminal case. There is a right to counsel in some non-criminal (i.e. civil) cases in many countries. This article doesn't address those at all. If it's only talking about the right to counsel in the context of criminal law, then the name of the article needs to be changed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.77.26 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment above is absolutely correct. This article should be renamed to "Right to counsel (criminal cases)", as there is an entirely separate body of law on the right to counsel in civil cases (some coming from federal law but most coming from state statutes and court decisions). Ideally, there would be a separate page set up for civil cases; I could contribute to such a page if it were created.Jpollo02 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)