Bute v. Illinois
Significance, Minority Opinion, Impact, Self Representation
State of Illinois
By not being advised of the right to legal counsel nor being asked if he desired legal counsel, petitioner was denied a fair, impartial trial under the provisions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
William C. Wines
Justices for the Court
Harold Burton (writing for the Court), Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge
Date of Decision
19 April 1948
Failure to advise the petitioner of his right to legal counsel did not invalidate his sentences; the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause did not require a state court to ask a defendant if he desired counsel nor was a state court required to offer counsel.
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
- Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942).
- Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437 (1948).
- Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
- Kinsella v. United States, 361 U.S. 234 (1960).
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
1991 Study of Self-Represented Litigants. American Bar Association.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Caryl Chessman Trial: 1948 - Defends Himself, Controversial Transcript
- Brief for Appellees - Brief For Appellees, I. Preliminary Statement, Iv. Questions Presented, V. The Statute - In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term (1952), II. OPINION BELOW
- Bute v. Illinois - Significance
- Bute v. Illinois - Minority Opinion
- Bute v. Illinois - Impact
- Bute v. Illinois - Self Representation
- Other Free Encyclopedias