Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Williams v. Kaiser — Opinion of the Court

If the Missouri Supreme Court enforces its requirement that an accused make manifest his need for appointed counsel and if Missouri enforces this requirement even with procedural strictness against those convicted of felonies years after their sentence, it is not for us to be hypercritical in denying to the highest tribunal of a State what it may conceive to be its duty to see to it that the great writ of habeas corpus is not abused [9] and that the administration of criminal justice is not needlessly weakened by astute devices.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Williams v. Kaiser — Opinion of the Court

Nothing is a more fundamental characteristic of a civilized society than those securities which safeguard a fair trial for one accused of crime. Those assurances were written into the Federal Constitution even against State action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A central safeguard is the opportunity for an accused to have adequate facilities for presenting his defense. But a full half century before the United States Constitution made this requirement of the States, Missouri, while yet a Territory, provided for the assistance of counsel for accused in need.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature