Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho (2019)
“ Read against this backdrop, the Sixth Amendment appears to have been understood at the time of ratification as a rejection of the English common-law rule that prohibited counsel, not as a guarantee of government-funded counsel. This understanding–that the Sixth Amendment did not require appointed counsel for defendants–persisted in the Court’s jurisprudence for nearly 150 years. See United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169, 173 (1891) (“There is, however, no general obligation on the part of the government [to] retain counsel for defendants or prisoners”) ”
