What Does the Right to Counsel Amendment Entails?

By Patrick Jones Aug 10 2021, 20:14 PM EDT

The legal system of a country forms the pillars of society. For a thriving community, a robust judiciary system needs to be in place. While bringing justice to the victim by punishing the criminal is fairly straightforward, most cases aren't. Many have twisted stories of each party involved, and hence, the legal system needs to provide a fair chance for each of them to fight for their freedom under truthful conditions. An extension to this right is the right to counsel amendment.

Under complex jargon of legal standing, grasping every legal right is practically impossible. However, few rights are on top of the defendant's priorities. 5th and 6th Amendments of the right to counsel are among those. Although the two are conflicting in nature, this article will help break down the confusion and web of terminologies.

What is the right to counsel?

Right to counsel refers to a defendant's right to receive the assistance of counsel, i.e., lawyers. The right to counsel is often considered a part of the right to a fair trial.

A criminal defendant who cannot afford legal representation has the right to be appointed at the government's expense. While the Supreme Court eventually recognized this right, it now applies to all federal and state criminal proceedings. If the defendant is facing or sentenced to more than one year of allowed imprisonment, including any length of suspended jail sentence, they can avail their right to counsel.

The right to counsel Amendment comes into play if the crime proceeds against the defendant. If the offense does not substantiate enough to form a case, the 5th amendment right to stay silent during an interrogation is usually practiced more.

There are specific criteria under which the counsel can affect the defendant's plea.

Conflict-Free Counsel

Whether counsel is engaged or assigned, the defendant has a right to counsel without a conflict of interest. The outcome is automatic reversal if an actual conflict of interest exists and that conflict has a detrimental effect on the representation. The basic rule is that conflicts can be waived deliberately and intelligently. However, some conflicts can't be waived off.

Ineffective Counsel

In Strickland v. Washington (1984), the Supreme Court stated that a defendant might be granted relief on collateral review if he or she can show that defense counsel's performance does not stand to the expected standard. This is also referred to as the "performance prong." Another aspect is if the counsel's representation jeopardizes the outcome and even altered it. This is called the "prejudice prong."

The Strickland case had a prominent prejudice prong, and to meet its requirement, a defendant who pleads guilty must establish that they would not have pleaded guilty if counsel's performance had been adequate. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court stated that counsel failed to present that unhuman pleading guilty of deportation is below the objective standard of the Strickland performance prong, allowing that the outcome could have substantially differed with a better performance of counsel.

5th & 6th Amendment

The 5th and 6th Amendments under the constitution of the United States Constitution prohibit discrimination. The Constitution protects the right to counsel. There are many disparities between these rights, which are typically more relevant in criminal trials than in personal damage ones, despite the fact that they sometimes overlap.

The right to counsel amendment under the 5th Amendment was recognized in Miranda v. Arizona. It refers to the right to counsel during a detention interrogation; the right to practical assistance of counsel under the 6th Amendment ensures the right to practical help during the critical stages of criminal prosecution.

Before a custodial interrogation by a government official, a person must be given Miranda warnings, including alerting the suspect of their right to an attorney. Any information obtained through interrogation is inadmissible in court if the individual is not informed of his or her Miranda rights. Miranda warnings were enacted to allow a suspect to confer with a counsel before being questioned in custody, even if the person had not been legally arrested. The meaning of "in custody" can be somewhat ambiguous, with the United States Supreme Court ruling that "in custody" for Miranda purposes does not always mean "in prison."

A person facing criminal accusations has the right to competent aid of counsel under the 6th Amendment. Once criminal proceedings against an accused commence, the 6th Amendment right to an attorney kicks in. A formal charge, preliminary hearing, information, indictment, or arraignment starts criminal proceedings.

If the suspect is not formally accused, an arrest does not always indicate the start of criminal proceedings and thus does not always activate 6th Amendment safeguards. The right to counsel under the 6th Amendment applies to all "critical phases" of a criminal case. The Supreme Court has ruled that arraignment, post-indictment lineups, post-indictment interrogation, plea talks, and tendering a guilty plea are crucial steps.

Differences

There are specific disparities between the two amendments that make them applicable only one at a time.

Applicability

While the 5th Amendment right to counsel may apply before an arrest, the 6th Amendment right to counsel does not apply until criminal proceedings against an individual have begun.

Offense Dependency

Unlike the 5th Amendment right to an attorney, the 6th Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, which means that once asserted, the 5th Amendment right to an attorney prevents authorities from questioning a suspect on any topic until the suspect gets a chance to talk with an attorney.

Presence of Attorney

On the other hand, the suspect is entitled to have an attorney present at interrogations and proceedings involving the specific offense under the 6th right to counsel amendment.

Yet, police may question the suspect on unrelated matters outside the presence of their attorney, which was the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that being in jail or prison does not mean being guilty of the specific offense. This does not fit with what the 5th Amendment implies.

To maintain the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the right to have counsel present during a detention interrogation is required.