Johnson v. Zerbst
- Decided
- May 31, 1938
- Docket
- 699
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 10,545 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds, abrogated (not yet verified) · State of Minnesota v. Yaroslav Yaroslavovich Murza
What later courts said
- holding that waiver of a constitutional right “is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege” — Wayne Dale Schell v. Larry Witek, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, 1 (2000)
- holding that fundamental right to counsel requires trial judge to determine whether defendant has made “an intelligent and competent waiver” — State v. Gulbrandson (1995)
- holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings applies in federal courts — Cooke v. State (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the , Court, Petitioner, while imprisoned in a federal penitentiary, was denied habeas corpus by the District Court. [1] later, [*459] that court granted petitioner a second hearing, prompted by “the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case and the desire of the court to afford opportunity to present any additional facts and views which petitioner desired to present.” Upon consideration of the second petition, the court found that it did “not substantially differ from the” first, ‘‘and for thé reasons stated in the decision in that case” the second petition was also denied.
Petitioner is serving sentence under a conviction in a United States District Court for possessing and uttering counterfeit money. It appears from the opinion of the District Judge denying habeas corpus. that he believed petitioner was deprived, 'in the trial court, of his constitutional right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” [2]
However, he held that' proceedings depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel weré not sufficient “to make the trial void and justify its annulment in a habeas corpus proceeding, but that they constituted trial errors or irregularities which could only be corrected on appeal.”
Cite this
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.