Betts v. Brady
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, the plurality in Loper v. Beto, Davis v. Page, and the amended opinion in State v. Young later criticized Betts's fundamental-fairness inquiry as discredited, unworkable, or unstable. The other reviewed opinions applied Betts before Gideon, reported the Supreme Court's overruling, rejected party arguments, or placed unrelated treatment language near the citation. Where CourtListener lists the same opinion more than once, it appears only once below, and superseded panel opinions were excluded.
1,154 later cases cite Betts v. Brady; 200 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Betts v. Brady?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court overruled Betts's holding that refusing to appoint counsel for an indigent state felony defendant did not necessarily violate due process, and held the right to counsel fundamental and obligatory on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gideon v. Wainwright · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding if left standing would require us to reject Gideon's claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel. Upon full reconsideration we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The en banc Second Circuit called Betts's prejudice-based fundamental-fairness inquiry elusive, unsatisfactory, and thoroughly discredited while extending Gideon's right-to-counsel rule to guilty pleas.
United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee · Second Circuit · filed
Before Gideon, it may have been possible to argue that the more egregious cases of prejudice could be rectified if pleas of guilty were reviewed for “fundamental fairness.” But it was precisely this sort of elusive and unsatisfactory inquiry into the possibility of prejudice which Gideon sought to inter once and for all. Indeed, the overruling of Betts by Gideon seems grounded on two fundamental assumptions: that a criminal defendant compelled to act without the advice of counsel will always be disadvantaged thereby, and that the precise degree of that disadvantage can never be satisfactorily measured by an after-the-fact search for prejudice. Since the considerations which impelled the Gideon Court to abandon the “fundamental fairness” test seem equally applicable to guilty pleas, there would seem no warrant for resurrecting a rule of law which has been so thoroughly discredited.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A four-Justice plurality of the Supreme Court called Betts ill-starred and discredited and refused to use its doctrine to restrict Gideon's retroactive application.
Loper v. Beto · Supreme Court of the United States (plurality opinion) · filed
If the retro-activity of Gideon is “sound,” then this case cannot be decided under the ill-starred and discredited doctrine of Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Southern District of Florida criticized Betts's case-by-case right-to-counsel method as discredited, confusing, and ultimately unworkable.
Davis v. Page · S.D. Fla. · filed
In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit adopted the now discredited practice endorsed in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942). Betts led to confusion and a plethora of litigation, and the case by case approach to the right to counsel finally proved unworkable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Iowa Supreme Court criticized Betts's multifactored special-circumstances test as unstable and prone to inconsistent results.
State v. Young · Supreme Court of Iowa · filed
Aside from Justice Black’s protest regarding the abandonment of the underlying rational of the right to counsel, the multifactored special-circumstances test in Betts was unstable and encountered some resistance in the lower courts as judges routinely found special circumstances.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Betts v. Brady and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace