Douglas v. California 372 U.S. 353 (1963)

• Author: Kenneth L. Karst
• Pages: 817

Page 817

Douglas, decided the same day as GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963), established an EQUAL PROTECTION right for INDIGENTS to be supplied counsel by the state, free of charge, to represent them in direct APPEALS from their criminal convictions. Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS, for a 6?3 majority, followed the lead of GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS (1956): DUE PROCESS might not require the state to offer appellate review of convictions, but once appeals were granted as of right, they must be made effectively available for all. The state's procedure, which provided appellate counsel only when the appeals court found such an appointment appropriate, denied "that equality demanded by the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."

Justice JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN, dissenting, elaborated on his Griffin dissent. The Fourteenth Amendment had enacted no "philosophy of leveling"; the state had no affirmative duty to relieve the poor from the handicaps of poverty. Due process was satisfied by the reasonableness of the state's procedure for appointing counsel.

Douglas appeared to be a major precedent pointing toward strict judicial scrutiny of WEALTH DISCRIMINATION. However, the BURGER COURT ended such speculations, even in the field of criminal justice.

(See ROSS V. MOFFITT; STRICT...