Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Chewning v. Cunningham — Opinion of the Court

We intimate no opinion on whether any of the problems mentioned would arise on petitioner's trial nor, if so, whether any would have merit. We only conclude that a trial on a charge of being a habitual criminal is such a serious one (Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3, 75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4) , the issues presented under Virginia's statute so complex, and the potential prejudice resulting from the absence of counsel so great that the rule we have followed concerning the appointment of counsel in other types of criminal trials [2] is equally applicable here.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Chewning v. Cunningham — Opinion of the Court

But the holding in the case applies equally to an accused faced with an information under Virginia's recidivist statute and who has no lawyer. It is 'The nature of the charge' (Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U.S. 485, 488, 65 S.Ct. 370, 89 L.Ed. 407) that underlines the need for counsel. In trials of this kind the labyrinth of the law is, or may be, too intricate for the layman to master.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature