Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Supreme Court: 00-1214

US Supreme Court: 00-1214

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by Supreme Court

More info:

Published by: Supreme Court on Jan 19, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





12345678910111213141516171819202122232425IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XALABAMA, :Petitioner :v. : No. 00-1214LeREED SHELTON. :-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XWashington, D.C.Tuesday, February 19, 2002The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United States at10:11 a.m.APPEARANCES:WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., ESQ., Attorney General of Alabama,Montgomery, Alabama; on behalf of the Petitioner.CHARLES FRIED, ESQ., Cambridge, Massachusetts; on behalfof amicus curiae in opposition to the judgment below.WILLIAM H. MILLS, ESQ., Birmingham, Alabama; on behalfof the Respondent.STEVEN B. DUKE, ESQ., New Haven, Connecticut; on behalf ofthe National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent. 
Alderson Reporting Company1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGEWILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 3CHARLES FRIED, ESQ.On behalf of amicus curiae in opposition to the judgment below 14WILLIAM H. MILLS, ESQ.On behalf of the Respondent 21STEVEN B. DUKE, ESQ.On behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as amicus curiae,supporting the Respondent 36REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFWILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 44
Alderson Reporting Company1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425P R O C E E D I N G S(10:11 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argumentnow in No. 00-1214, Alabama v. LeReed Shelton.General Pryor.ORAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR.ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMR. PRYOR: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, andmay it please the Court:30 years ago in Argersinger v. Hamlin and thenmore than 20 years ago in Scott v. Illinois, this Courtestablished the principle that, under the Sixth andFourteenth Amendments, a State is not obligated to providean indigent defendant in a misdemeanor case court-appointed and taxpayer-funded counsel, provided that thedefendant is not actually imprisoned upon conviction.8 years ago in Nichols v. the United States,this Court reaffirmed that principle. The Supreme Court of Alabama distorted thiswell-established and workable rule and held that aprobated or suspended sentence, which actually liberates adefendant to return to free society, nevertheless triggersa right to court-appointed and taxpayer-funded counsel. There are three arguments that I would like toaddress this morning.
Alderson Reporting Company1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->